From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: isearch multiple buffers Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:22:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4722E74D.5000200@gmail.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1193470294 30607 80.91.229.12 (27 Oct 2007 07:31:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:31:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juri Linkov , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 27 09:31:36 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ilg8s-0005e6-SQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:31:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ilg8k-0001zC-1Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:31:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ilg8f-0001uT-D7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:31:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ilg8d-0001s6-HT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:31:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ilg8d-0001ri-D0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:31:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ilg8Z-0000iM-Gm; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:31:15 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ilg11-0005JS-Sr; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:23:28 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:59587 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ilg0y-0000Bs-5M; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:23:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070728 Thunderbird/2.0.0.6 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071026-0, 2007-10-26), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Ilg0y-0000Bs-5M. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1Ilg0y-0000Bs-5M b5dae5ea7d1b9296bfc136b24da3069b X-detected-kernel: by mx20.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:81830 Archived-At: Drew Adams wrote: >>> Selecting the buffers to be searched is not a problem. I think the >>> *Buffer List* is a good interface to select them. The question is >>> how to start multi-buffer isearch. Imagine that you've marked a list >>> of buffers in the *Buffer List*. How to start multi-buffer isearch now? >>> Should C-s start multi-buffer isearch in marked files, or should C-s >>> still allow searching for the string in the *Buffer List* (this >>> is useful for searching buffer names in the *Buffer List*). >> I believe most users would be surprised if C-s started multi-buffer >> isearch for the marked files. > > Until they learn about it. It's not exactly dangerous, but it could be > surprising the first time, if you haven't heard about it first. They would have to learn also what to use instead of C-s in that particular buffer. >> But it is still a good "mnemonic". Maybe >> ask the user if he/she wants to search the marked files? > > I'm against that. > > Asking the user for confirmation should be a last resort, reserved for > something that makes changes or has drastic consequences. It should not be > used just because we introduce a new feature that might surprise a user who > is not yet aware of it. If we did that each time, we would by now have > confirmation questions all over the place. > >