From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Interpretation of a space in regexp isearch? Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:25:08 +0400 Message-ID: <502C5A04.1030208@yandex.ru> References: <502B2845.9070200@yandex.ru><878vdgiv2d.fsf@gnu.org> <61874483AF75410DB400C72A9306D065@us.oracle.com> <502C286F.2010302@yandex.ru> <17A9DBC4175D4596877A60388AA68C25@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.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 1345083922 29024 80.91.229.3 (16 Aug 2012 02:25:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Bastien' , cyd@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, 'Dani Moncayo' To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 16 04:25:20 2012 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 1T1plt-0004hJ-Pk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:25:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34507 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1pls-0001i2-Gp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:25:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53152) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1plp-0001hk-K7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:25:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1plo-0008Lz-Kr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:25:13 -0400 Original-Received: from forward4h.mail.yandex.net ([84.201.186.22]:53814) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1pll-0008Kx-Q7; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:25:10 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp1h.mail.yandex.net (smtp1h.mail.yandex.net [84.201.187.144]) by forward4h.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 7EAC51B2088B; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:25:06 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from smtp1h.mail.yandex.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1h.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id CCAC8134015A; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:25:05 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from 5x164x77x95.dynamic.spb.ertelecom.ru (5x164x77x95.dynamic.spb.ertelecom.ru [5.164.77.95]) by smtp1h.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTP id P4xi0nIU-P4x8Cf0K; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 06:25:05 +0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1345083905; bh=PWqAj9GLN8gjlFtbjtUeeQX3Cx+QvBv+nOOoIpDLSAU=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ZLBL/T0m2lZpjKbgkIcNHeRSKrYV/pNNZHVPFWj3tlxpBQwW/caVXo9aTdLQe7IWT T7O2nE3FpGx81Of2ALIX5RZc/NHf8kSjZkfpAwjGCaaTAsJBAdgEG3SGVg0E/GCcQ9 90UeneWqr0JhJxn/GMJSbb6RO6NW+3G9HUZbIvZU= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <17A9DBC4175D4596877A60388AA68C25@us.oracle.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 84.201.186.22 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:152576 On 16.08.2012 3:21, Drew Adams wrote: >> On the flip side, I've seen many times that less-technical >> users can be sloppy with the amount of whitespace between words. >> If the non-regexp version is supposed to be easy to use, then >> `search-whitespace-regexp' behavior might be quite useful there. > > Less-technical users are often used to less-technical editors that do NOT try to > be so clever (er, that is, "easy to use"). Incremental search in Emacs is different enough from the search function in simple editors, I think, that doing things the same way is not very valuable. > Not every search (or even most searches?) by less-technical users is intended to > ignore additional whitespace. Whitespace can matter to less-technical users > too. And less-technical does not necessarily mean more sloppy, including about > whitespace between words. Like I said, the amount of false positives is, in my experience, negligible. But it can prevent some false negatives, in some situations, for certain user expectations.