From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Is it obvious that string-match syntax matching is affected by the current buffer? Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:36:24 +0200 Message-ID: <83k2l6dvbb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <56E59AD0.5070302@easy-emacs.de> <83ziu2e1gr.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457897831 1513 80.91.229.3 (13 Mar 2016 19:37:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 19:37:11 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 13 20:37:11 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1afBp8-0000Eq-4C for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 20:37:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37358 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afBp7-0006Ju-9a for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:37:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36126) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afBow-0006Jm-0m for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:36:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afBos-0002ML-Rq for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:36:57 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43812) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afBos-0002MH-OQ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:36:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4770 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1afBor-0006pX-Mf for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:36:54 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Tom on Sun, 13 Mar 2016 19:19:09 +0000 (UTC)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:109562 Archived-At: > From: Tom > Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 19:19:09 +0000 (UTC) > > When I work with a string then I feel it should not be affected > by settings of the current buffer, because it's not buffer text > anymore, but a separate object. Yes. But many times, the string is a substring created from (some transformation of) the current buffer's text, in which case applying the buffer's defaults to it yields the expected results.