[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.

From: Andreas Schwab
Subject: Re: Repeating tag searches does no longer work.
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 16:12:55 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>> > Uh, yes.  It is C-u M-. that repeats M-.  Sorry for the false alarm.
>> > Would there be drawbacks if M-, also did it?
>> * Changes in version 19.
>> ** M-. (find-tag) no longer has any effect on what M-, will do
>> subsequently.  You can no longer use M-, to find the next similar tag;
>> you must use M-. with a prefix argument, instead.
>> The motive for this change is so that you can more reliably use
>> M-, to resume a suspended `tags-search' or `tags-query-replace'.
> Considering the relative frequency of those commands, I would have
> thought it more convenient to make C-u M-, resume a suspended
> `tags-search' or `tags-query-replace', while just M-, resumes whatever
> was done last.

Note that this change was established more than 12 years ago.

revision 1.11
date: 1992/07/07 17:57:20;  author: rms;  state: Exp;  lines: +3 -1
*** empty log message ***
--- etags.el    01 Aug 2004 16:10:26 +0200      1.10
+++ etags.el    01 Aug 2004 16:10:37 +0200      1.11
@@ -223,7 +223,9 @@ See documentation of variable tags-file-
        (switch-to-buffer-other-window tagbuf)
       (switch-to-buffer tagbuf))
-  (setq tags-loop-form '(find-tag nil t))
+;; I turned this off because people complain that it causes trouble
+;; when they find a tag during a tags-search.  M-0 M-. is easy enough. --RMS
+;;  (setq tags-loop-form '(find-tag nil t))
   ;; Return t in case used as the tags-loop-form.


Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, address@hidden
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

reply via email to

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