[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#7700: 24.0.50; C-y binding withing Isearch mode

From: Lennart Borgman
Subject: bug#7700: 24.0.50; C-y binding withing Isearch mode
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 13:13:08 +0100

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Dani Moncayo <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 04:25, Lennart Borgman
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 3:39 AM, Stefan Monnier
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> I use C-y ("grab to next end of line") quite a bit.
>>> I'd much rather have a prefix key that lets me use any standard movement
>>> to select the text to grab from the buffer (so "<prefix> C-e" would do
>>> what C-y does and "<prefix> M-f" would do more or less what C-w does).
>> I like the logic/mnemonic but wouldn't it would be cumbersome to use it?
> Not much, provided that the <prefix> key was required only one time. I
> think would be good to have that key as a switch to turn "grabbing
> mode" on/off.

You have to do it every time you want to grab something more. A common
situation is that you have moved from the last hit and then want to
grab more.

>> I suggest instead that any standard forward movement command while in
>> isearch forward mode should select the text to grab WITHOUT any prefix
>> key. For backward movement I suggest a similar logic.
> I prefer Stefan's proposal because with that there would be no need to
> alter the current meaning of prefix arguments in movement commands,
> and thus, you could use movement commands _even with prefix arguments_
> to both (a) grab text from the buffer,

Why should that be different from my proposal?

> and (b) leave Isearch mode and
> move point (all in a single operation, as you can do currently).

You just leave isearch once after the search so this way of solving
the problems leads to more key strokes, doesn't it?

And besides, if you happen to forget to leave isearch before a forward
movement command you are still at the right point after it. So you can
just leave it there.

> I think it would be more consistent/intuitive/powerful.

I fail to see why, but I may be biased ;-)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]