Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

[David Kastrup]

[This started with a bug report of me on the bug list]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     M-. RET M-, on some suitable tag word will just barf.  See input and
>     messages below:
> 
> I don't think this is a bug.  M-, is meant to repeat a tags-search or
> tags-query-replace command.  It does not work with M-.

Uh, yes.  It is C-u M-. that repeats M-.  Sorry for the false alarm.
Would there be drawbacks if M-, also did it?  Is an interleaving of
M-. and M-, (in its current meaning) likely, so that it would make
sense to keep the current separation?  I think it is not the first
time that I confused this, and the similarity of the keybindings does
suggest some connection.

I am copying this to emacs-devel in case someone wants to comment on it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

[Andreas Schwab]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Uh, yes.  It is C-u M-. that repeats M-.  Sorry for the false alarm.
> Would there be drawbacks if M-, also did it?

* Changes in version 19.

** M-. (find-tag) no longer has any effect on what M-, will do
subsequently.  You can no longer use M-, to find the next similar tag;
you must use M-. with a prefix argument, instead.

The motive for this change is so that you can more reliably use
M-, to resume a suspended `tags-search' or `tags-query-replace'.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Uh, yes.  It is C-u M-. that repeats M-.  Sorry for the false alarm.
> > Would there be drawbacks if M-, also did it?
> 
> * Changes in version 19.
> 
> ** M-. (find-tag) no longer has any effect on what M-, will do
> subsequently.  You can no longer use M-, to find the next similar tag;
> you must use M-. with a prefix argument, instead.
> 
> The motive for this change is so that you can more reliably use
> M-, to resume a suspended `tags-search' or `tags-query-replace'.

Considering the relative frequency of those commands, I would have
thought it more convenient to make C-u M-, resume a suspended
`tags-search' or `tags-query-replace', while just M-, resumes whatever
was done last.

So a single C-u M-, would make subsequent M-, switch to tags-search
again, and a single C-u M-. would make subsequent M-, switch to
find-tag again.

In either case, there would be an easy way to switch M-, M-, M-, to go
through the kind of search you prefer at the moment.

C-u M-, does not appear to have any meaning right now.

Objections?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

[Andreas Schwab]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Uh, yes.  It is C-u M-. that repeats M-.  Sorry for the false alarm.
>> > Would there be drawbacks if M-, also did it?
>> 
>> * Changes in version 19.
>> 
>> ** M-. (find-tag) no longer has any effect on what M-, will do
>> subsequently.  You can no longer use M-, to find the next similar tag;
>> you must use M-. with a prefix argument, instead.
>> 
>> The motive for this change is so that you can more reliably use
>> M-, to resume a suspended `tags-search' or `tags-query-replace'.
>
> Considering the relative frequency of those commands, I would have
> thought it more convenient to make C-u M-, resume a suspended
> `tags-search' or `tags-query-replace', while just M-, resumes whatever
> was done last.

Note that this change was established more than 12 years ago.

----------------------------
revision 1.11
date: 1992/07/07 17:57:20;  author: rms;  state: Exp;  lines: +3 -1
*** empty log message ***
----------------------------
--- etags.el	01 Aug 2004 16:10:26 +0200	1.10
+++ etags.el	01 Aug 2004 16:10:37 +0200	1.11
@@ -223,7 +223,9 @@ See documentation of variable tags-file-
 	(switch-to-buffer-other-window tagbuf)
       (switch-to-buffer tagbuf))
     )
-  (setq tags-loop-form '(find-tag nil t))
+;; I turned this off because people complain that it causes trouble
+;; when they find a tag during a tags-search.  M-0 M-. is easy enough. --RMS
+;;  (setq tags-loop-form '(find-tag nil t))
   ;; Return t in case used as the tags-loop-form.
   t)
 

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

[Richard Stallman]

    In either case, there would be an easy way to switch M-, M-, M-, to go
    through the kind of search you prefer at the moment.

    C-u M-, does not appear to have any meaning right now.

I don't see a need; giving M-. an arg is easy enough so this is no
real improvement.  Please leave this alone.

Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     In either case, there would be an easy way to switch M-, M-, M-,
>     to go through the kind of search you prefer at the moment.
> 
>     C-u M-, does not appear to have any meaning right now.
> 
> I don't see a need; giving M-. an arg is easy enough so this is no
> real improvement.

C-u M-. C-u M-. C-u M-. ... is quite more obnoxious to type than
M-, M-, M-, ... OTOH, probably repeated find-tag commands are not that
important.

> Please leave this alone.

No problem.  It struck me as a possibly worthwhile idea and I wanted
to get feedback on it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> > I don't see a need; giving M-. an arg is easy enough so this is no
> > real improvement.
> 
> C-u M-. C-u M-. C-u M-. ... is quite more obnoxious to type than
> M-, M-, M-, ... 

M-0 M-. is easier to type.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk