From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Apropos commands and regexps Date: 13 May 2002 21:18:45 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5x7km797qi.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1021354795 1475 127.0.0.1 (14 May 2002 05:39:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 05:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 177V2R-0000Ng-00 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 07:39:55 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 177VDK-0003tH-00 for ; Tue, 14 May 2002 07:51:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 177V2Q-000313-00; Tue, 14 May 2002 01:39:54 -0400 Original-Received: from fepd.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.149]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 177KSZ-0000FQ-00; Mon, 13 May 2002 14:22:11 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk ([80.62.38.68]) by fepD.post.tele.dk (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with SMTP id <20020513181759.XKN7393.fepD.post.tele.dk@kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk>; Mon, 13 May 2002 20:17:59 +0200 Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 34 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3900 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3900 Miles Bader writes: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Wouldn't it be simpler (for a novice user -- and for advanced users > > > too) to simply write one or more words (substrings) and then search > > > for all combinations of those words (substrings) in the relevant list. > > > > > > E.g. C-h a open file RET would find any matching > > > > > > open.*file and file.*open > > > > Perhaps we should have a new command for that, and name it something like > > apropos-keywords. > > I agree, but I think it shouldn't use the wierd hack on regexp syntax, > that's just confusing. I agree that we might find something better than what I suggested; it's a starting point which can be improved... > > I'd say just separate the keywords by looking for commas or whitespace > or either (each `keyword' could be a regexp though). That would be > both more convenient and also more familiar to people used to using > typical keyword searches (e.g., in web search engines). We could put \b around the words in the regexp if we don't want substring matching. The obvious problem restricting this to complete words is how to make e.g. "list process" match "list-processes". -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk