From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ingo Lohmar Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: tags-loop-continue Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:26:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87egdp8nh5.fsf@acer.localhost.com> 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> <5b7c961c-e5ff-4ca2-bb26-dfc1d1e60d7f@default> <56926C23.6000708@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1452440114 32727 80.91.229.3 (10 Jan 2016 15:35:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov , Drew Adams , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 10 16:35:10 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 1aII1N-0005t3-1Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:35:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47340 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aII1M-0002cn-C3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:35:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49432) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aIHt8-0004aF-SF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:26:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aIHt8-0007Cs-46 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:26:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]:34171) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aIHt2-0007Af-QQ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:26:32 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id u188so187548624wmu.1; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 07:26:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=aDJCisRY4sf/JNsdY+wtZjZxZ60kNSCRcxCjI9XbLJE=; b=HnXh+PlrLXl0USgBXS92efR0cMQiWSqbodqozjbvL8a6P99F44+MQmcCJEu9JA6S/M nt2WoH1uyV3Y6l/eGU1LK9CfOC+9jj5buRotdYaM4O5V46vWwhx8KjDcTi1O/7vKCzgK AomhxFv98fz8BX2fBZyZd1SJG3YPrx/o0YPaeS1RRqQOBEFTxy45Sn1OwtrUQhV8kcSV AvLid2J+pPyzqeG2aUSk1j3YSnpW30UIAaIzf0hH4du2pAjdJEJdNH4dnd/VBtKxza1I Ny7wHzIPH71HRSBUMqyUXzJ3m4n84Q82916a/onKqOoXM0ay9Od75rI46Td9oJQpqUgL QBVg== X-Received: by 10.28.105.25 with SMTP id e25mr9446946wmc.62.1452439592129; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 07:26:32 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (xdsl-213-196-210-95.netcologne.de. [213.196.210.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jm4sm115257978wjb.7.2016.01.10.07.26.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Jan 2016 07:26:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56926C23.6000708@yandex.ru> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2+113~g6332e6e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.1.50.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::236 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:197966 Archived-At: On Sun, Jan 10 2016 17:35 (+0300), Dmitry Gutov wrote: > They could be used, but apparently not in conjunction with > tags-loop-continue. > > Just how much time has passed since we've given the tags-loop-continue's > binding to xref-pop-marker-stack before this question has come up? > > And we're not talking about it because a user complained. We're > discussing it because we've been reminded of it while updating the > documentation. Speaking for my case, I've not noticed the change simply because I have rebound all tags/xref keys (the default bindings never made much sense to me). There might be a strong overlap between a) the people who use this (very useful but also) kind of advanced and not quite obvious feature, and the people who rebind keys explicitly (and therefore would not notice a default binding change).