From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: tags-loop-continue Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:36:50 +0200 Message-ID: <83zivy7jq5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83wprimto9.fsf@gnu.org> <56916C10.6050004@yandex.ru> <83oacumqmj.fsf@gnu.org> <56917246.1010800@yandex.ru> <5691795E.9010008@yandex.ru> <83lh7ym725.fsf@gnu.org> <5691D768.3020908@yandex.ru> <83bn8tmnvq.fsf@gnu.org> <56928356.2000609@yandex.ru> <8360z1mkfc.fsf@gnu.org> <5696EE9D.2090708@yandex.ru> <838u3si22k.fsf@gnu.org> <5697C7A8.6060601@yandex.ru> <83wprcgjxk.fsf@gnu.org> <5697DA3B.3070706@yandex.ru> <83io2wggh8.fsf@gnu.org> <5697EC73.6040302@yandex.ru> <83fuy0gf2j.fsf@gnu.org> <5697F3C9.5040702@yandex.ru> <83bn8ogd8c.fsf@gnu.org> <56980073.7050604@yandex.ru> <838u3rhpzk.fsf@gnu.org> <569D3ADC.5060803@yandex.ru> <83si1sa47q.fsf@gnu.org> <56A0659F.1010306@yandex.ru> <83si1q987x.fsf@gnu.org> <56A11160.2010309@yandex.ru> <83k2n2964e.fsf@gnu.org> <56A12A4B.7030609@yandex.ru> <838u3i92n1.fsf@gnu.org> <56A12D6D.7080504@yandex.ru> <837fj29057.fsf@gnu.org> <56A13C75.4030606@yandex.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1453408620 14319 80.91.229.3 (21 Jan 2016 20:37:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 21 21:36:53 2016 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 1aMLyO-0000DP-N0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:36:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49661 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aMLyK-0001A4-RH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:36:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48434) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aMLyH-00019p-CH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:36:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aMLyE-0000Ty-7U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:36:45 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52181) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aMLyE-0000Tu-4U; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:36:42 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4586 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aMLyC-0001CB-IN; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:36:41 -0500 In-reply-to: <56A13C75.4030606@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:15:49 +0300) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:198535 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:15:49 +0300 > > On 01/21/2016 10:56 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Fine, then let's have the proper solution. Having none in v25.1 is > > not an option. > > You're welcome to continue this discussion in > http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20489. > > The problem looks bad, but it doesn't seem like it bothers a lot of > people That's because not a lot of people got exposed to the problem yet. They will once v25.1 hits the street. > and the pyramid of hacks in next-error-find-buffer does indicate > that the current behavior is at least intentional. I don't see how this is relevant. I'm not saying the code doesn't work as designed, I'm saying there's a deficiency in the collection of commands that use next-error, which inconveniences users. > Since the bug is old, I wouldn't call it a blocker for 25.1. I disagree. I think the problem is bad enough to have it solved now. > As far as xref goes, we'll just have to make extra sure not to hide its > buffer. We should do that, indeed. But we won't be able to prevent that in 100% of cases.