Re: Conkeror-like functionality for EWW

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:15:29 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: 

LMI> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>> I'd like `next-error' and `previous-error' bound, if that's OK with you.
>> They can take a numeric argument to indicate how far to move in either
>> direction.  That would be useful either way, right?

LMI> Well, `C-u 3 M-x next-error' would just be the same as `3 TAB', right?
LMI> So if it's not absolute, it seems even less useful, and we already have
LMI> that functionality on `TAB'...

For me personally, the keypad / and * keys are bound to next/previous
error. It's easier than S-TAB to move backwards, and IMO a little easier
than TAB to move forwards. Many modes don't even bind TAB because it's
an editing command. So it's a personal preference. I can certainly add
next/previous-error support in a hook if you don't want it in EWW
itself.

I rarely use the numeric arguments, so I have no opinion there...

Ted