From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: should search ring contain duplicates? Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 23:47:48 +0300 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <8764kezswj.fsf@jurta.org> References: <200605030727.k437R2Wx009975@amrm2.ics.uci.edu> <87bqufwbls.fsf@jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1147217086 15050 80.91.229.2 (9 May 2006 23:24:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dann@ics.uci.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 10 01:24:44 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdbZK-00049a-Og for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 May 2006 01:24:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdbZK-0007yA-4L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:24:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FdbZ3-0007w3-Ot for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:24:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FdbZ3-0007vO-12 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:24:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdbZ2-0007vI-TX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:24:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [217.25.160.1] (helo=relay1.binet.com.ua) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FdbaC-0005i9-SL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:25:37 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay1.binet.com.ua (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE947A9BB; Wed, 10 May 2006 02:24:23 +0300 (EEST) Original-Received: from mail.binet.com.ua (i61.dialup.binet.com.ua [217.25.161.125]) by relay1.binet.com.ua (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C037A983; Wed, 10 May 2006 02:24:21 +0300 (EEST) Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) In-Reply-To: <87bqufwbls.fsf@jurta.org> (Juri Linkov's message of "Wed, 03 May 2006 15:48:48 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAv at binet.com.ua 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:54154 Archived-At: > Below is a tested patch that removes `keep-all' from `read-from-minibuffer', > adds duplicate replacement strings to the query-replace history explicitly, > and fixes more places where the value of `history-delete-duplicates' > is not taken into account yet (namely, `repeat-complex-command', > `call-interactively'). What is the decision about my patch? Is it OK to remove the argument `keep-all' and to fix other history handling places? -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/