From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 3e9ac80: Yet another doc improvement for search commands Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:05:54 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151130173139.31071.34723@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <83oaebkybx.fsf@gnu.org> <83d1uqkwn4.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c2ae49c6cc0525da02eb X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1448993176 13777 80.91.229.3 (1 Dec 2015 18:06:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 18:06:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 01 19:06:14 2015 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 1a3pJb-00068n-3o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:06:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54186 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a3pJa-00084w-L5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:06:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58882) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a3pJO-00084m-Gw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:05:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a3pJN-0006ay-O6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:05:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]:35565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a3pJM-0006ah-5X; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:05:56 -0500 Original-Received: by lfdl133 with SMTP id l133so19428704lfd.2; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 10:05:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kY5DgpMP4QXwqJZB6Mu40pMdEDGhfcH11QXf5FfchZc=; b=lfvLpnGz/bYVHZiRQtWvTyXQunW9X5NIMRg9+U1nDhR7QGow2T6VdljDIVZyypGuPF 6vUCwLRdcsXyZ5I6usNee1f5GHZFfNrAob0TeBxgsM6fRLyvNwewi7sofRdKFBE+ScCc lNK6pfHVaP4Mjn24TOICUdjPMuFFJIduVQkwMGlX4XhkuZlUOantVlP/ozg/MC+yxx1i nblbxXb+tEH9R4mWLLxIIt4JeZ18pZefOHL53Sz/vToduD15bQZXwEEzV6y8aImP52Tr aDGoaDUwa1nd2G7IGZkAkC0PgO3L1ehiiBGklmP8rUgyREqpJcaYZoaDDRV7g7lckLLQ Bztg== X-Received: by 10.112.242.167 with SMTP id wr7mr5255773lbc.69.1448993155038; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 10:05:55 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.112.202.99 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:05:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.112.202.99 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:05:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83d1uqkwn4.fsf@gnu.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: mIAbTTqxjCTemtmzkfnMHJZkA2o X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e 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:195690 Archived-At: --001a1134c2ae49c6cc0525da02eb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 1 Dec 2015 3:37 pm, "Eli Zaretskii" wrote: > Maybe we should add a note that, although lax-whitespace matching is > not supported with word search, it is also not needed, because spaces > between words are ignored anyway? Yes. We shouldn't say it can't do lax-whitespace, cause the reality is that it can't NOT do lax-whitespace. We can either say nothing, or say something like: The word search commands don't perform character folding and are not affected by lax whitespace matching (since they ignore the spaces between words anyway, @pxref{Lax Search}). --001a1134c2ae49c6cc0525da02eb Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

On 1 Dec 2015 3:37 pm, "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> Maybe we should add a note that, although lax-whitespace matching is
> not supported with word search, it is also not needed, because spaces
> between words are ignored anyway?

Yes. We shouldn't say it can't do lax-whitespace, cause the reality is that it can't NOT do lax-whitespace.

We can either say nothing, or say something like:
The word search commands don't perform character folding and are not affected by lax whitespace matching (since they ignore the spaces between words anyway, @pxref{Lax Search}).

--001a1134c2ae49c6cc0525da02eb--