From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: query-replace in isearch (was Re: should search ring contain duplicates?) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 22:52:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: <200605030727.k437R2Wx009975@amrm2.ics.uci.edu> <87bqufwbls.fsf@jurta.org> <200605031504.k43F49hr001544@scanner2.ics.uci.edu> <87wtcslqoj.fsf@jurta.org> <87y7x75wtp.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 1147640061 31037 80.91.229.2 (14 May 2006 20:54:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:54:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, dann@ics.uci.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 14 22:54:19 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 1FfNbT-0002Fz-UP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 May 2006 22:54:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FfNbT-0002wx-GY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 May 2006 16:54:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FfNbI-0002ws-N3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2006 16:54:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FfNbE-0002wR-WA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2006 16:54:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FfNbE-0002wK-NZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2006 16:54:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.41.46.237] (helo=pfepc.post.tele.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FfNdT-0005r7-5e; Sun, 14 May 2006 16:56:19 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (0x503e2644.bynxx3.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.62.38.68]) by pfepc.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BA248A004F; Sun, 14 May 2006 22:53:56 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun, 14 May 2006 11:09:51 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:54463 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > > Using > > add-to-history will treat this new element just like other new > > elements on the same history list. That seems right to me. Do you > > think it is wrong in this case? > > It is wrong if history-delete-duplicates is nil; then it unconditionally > adds an element even if it is equal to the head of the history. > > If history-delete-duplicates is nil, why is that behavior wrong? > Isn't it normal, in that case, to add the new element unconditionally? read-from-minibuffer doesn't add it unless KEEP-ALL is non-nil. so for consistency, neither should add-to-history IMO. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk