From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: should search ring contain duplicates? Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 17:54:36 -0700 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146617710 31234 80.91.229.2 (3 May 2006 00:55:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 00:55:10 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 03 02:55:06 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb5dr-0006Ni-MJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 02:54:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb5dr-0006oJ-8t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 20:54:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb5dg-0006oB-OP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 20:54:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb5dd-0006nN-6S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 20:54:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb5dd-0006nK-0q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 20:54:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [141.146.126.228] (helo=agminet01.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.52) id 1Fb5dt-00013p-F8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 20:55:01 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.49]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k430seie028686 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 19:54:40 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dhcp-amer-rmdc-csvpn-gw6-141-144-114-1.vpn.oracle.com [141.144.114.1]) by rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with SMTP id k430scgh001946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 18:54:39 -0600 Original-To: "Emacs-Devel" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:53829 Archived-At: Each successful incremental search adds the search string to the search ring (as the most recent entry), even if it is already in the ring past the first entry. Nothing prevents the ring from containing multiple copies of the same string, which seems wasteful (and useless). At the limit, the search ring, regardless of its length, might contain as few as two different search strings. Shouldn't `isearch-update-ring' (in isearch.el) add the latest search string at the front of the ring but remove it elsewhere in the ring? The result would be a more useful ring.