From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier 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 20:13:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <56E59AD0.5070302@easy-emacs.de> <83ziu2e1gr.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457914447 10355 80.91.229.3 (14 Mar 2016 00:14:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:14:07 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 14 01:13:59 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 1afG90-0004Op-3Y for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:13:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38238 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afG8z-0004fb-Gh for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 20:13:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58376) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afG8o-0004fW-Oh for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 20:13:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afG8l-0007SO-Hp for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 20:13:46 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:51394) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1afG8l-0007SK-B6 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 20:13:43 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1afG8j-0004FB-Gu for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:13:41 +0100 Original-Received: from 24.140.224.194 ([24.140.224.194]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:13:41 +0100 Original-Received: from monnier by 24.140.224.194 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:13:41 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 12 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.140.224.194 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mn//1/Aml8L0M96w/1Dg2n6ZU10= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:109563 Archived-At: > 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. I agree, yet at the same time this begs the question: which setting to use, if not the current buffer's? Using some global setting for them instead would be wrong just as often, if not more. Stefan