>> It's difficult to choose self-descriptive symbols.  So we need to have
>> just good enough symbol names, then describe their exact meaning in the
>> documentation.
>
> Then I guess introducing 'inc-no' and 'inc-no-ding' for incremental
> wrapping should do as it preserves the meaning of the existing values.
>
> Just  one more question.
>
> Why shouldn't the behaviour of 'no' and 'no-ding' be changed to handle
> incremental searches as well, instead of introducing new values?

Good question.  The reason was to maintain "backward-compatibility".
But do we really need to restrict the existing values only to C-s C-s,
and not to incremental commands?  In this case here is a new patch: