From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: isearch-allow-move [Was: isearch-allow-prefix] Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:30:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20130607103057.GA3199@acm.acm> References: <20130525200103.GA3451@acm.acm> <878v32aj3c.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <20130602210512.GC2765@acm.acm> <87sj0xn484.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <20130604212400.GB2492@acm.acm> <87d2s1otjb.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <20130605210241.GA3730@acm.acm> <8761xr93h5.fsf_-_@mail.jurta.org> <20130606200719.GA3911@acm.acm> <87ehcexw3u.fsf@mail.jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1370601078 3557 80.91.229.3 (7 Jun 2013 10:31:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:31:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 07 12:31:17 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1Uktwz-0002U4-57 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:31:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57949 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uktwy-0002Si-Ij for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 06:31:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38320) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uktwv-0002Sd-L7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 06:31:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uktwu-00018W-Ik for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 06:31:13 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:31036 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uktwu-00018Q-9Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 06:31:12 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 5091 invoked by uid 3782); 7 Jun 2013 10:31:10 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD951AD45.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.81.173.69]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:31:08 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3696 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Jun 2013 10:30:57 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ehcexw3u.fsf@mail.jurta.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 8.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:160202 Archived-At: Hi, Juri! On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:59:49AM +0300, Juri Linkov wrote: > > But what does it mean to C-f with a prefix arg of -1? Does it mean > > "remove the last char from the search string"? If not, why not? > > Or maybe a negative prefix argument would cause the command to be ignored. > > Or maybe C-b would be allowed here to remove the last char from the > > search string. > Good idea. This is implemented now by this patch (cumulative to > the previously sent one) where `C-b' or `C-u -1 C-f' removes the > last char from the search string (`M-b' removes the last word, > `C-M-b' removes the last expression, etc. allowing key sequences like > `M-s C-b M-b C-M-b'), and eventually stops removing characters at the > beginning of the current match when the search string becomes empty. > Is this approach simple enough and intuitive? I don't think so. What happens in a regexp search? Particularly when the last typed characters are "\)" or "]", or "?", or there's still an unbalanced "\(" in the string. What does M-b do then? My gut feeling is that this proposal will add complexity rather than reducing it, and the new facility won't be worth that cost. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).