[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#11378: 24.1.50; Suggestion: Let M-i in isearch cycle `search-invisib
bug#11378: 24.1.50; Suggestion: Let M-i in isearch cycle `search-invisible'
Thu, 30 May 2013 06:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
> > I understand that approach. I disagree, that's all.
> It's no surprise that you disagree because both preferences make sense:
And we agree about that.
> (1) Start each new search afresh with default values.
> (2) Keep the current search state for subsequent searches.
> There are more possible preferences:
> (3) Someone even might prefer to keep the current search state
> within the confines of the current buffer (easy to do with
> `make-local-variable' on the transient search variables).
> (4) Reuse the previous search values only for the repeated search
> `C-s C-s'. This what the variable `isearch-last-case-fold-search'
> is used for. But why `isearch-last-case-fold-search' only?
> Other search variables could be supported too.
> This suggests two new customizable options: one to define which search
> variables to keep for the next search to be able to choose the behavior
> between (1) and (2) for every search variable, and another option for (4)
> to choose which search variables to keep for the repeated search `C-s C-s'
> (its default value could reuse the last case-fold only as it currently
As has often been the case, we think similarly (but differently too) here.
In my previous msg I mentioned a different way to combine both possibilities
(1: start with default vs 2: start from last)). Not limited to Isearch,
and togglable between the two start-with behaviors.
When I get some time I'll throw something together and try it. Maybe
let a (particular) prefix arg on the toggle command toggle also the current
start-with behavior. E.g., a macro would define a user option and associated
variables, plus a toggle command usable for both start-with behaviors.