emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: xref-query-replace-in-results error message after xref-find-definiti


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: xref-query-replace-in-results error message after xref-find-definitions, was: Re: bug#58158: 29.0.50; [overlay] Interval tree iteration considered harmful
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:05:15 +0300

> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 16:47:15 +0300
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> 
> On 12.10.2022 08:17, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Let's drop the "global" adjective, though: whether the command works
> >> "globally", "locally", or etc, depends on how the user made the search.
> > The "global" part is important, though: it's supposed to hint on why
> > find-definition results cannot be used.  The opposite of "global" here
> > is "partial", not "local".  If you can suggest a better word for
> > "global" here, please do.
> 
> I think you're trying hard to make it clearer, but it still won't have 
> 100% the intended effect.
> 
> And it makes the error more likely to confuse the user and make them 
> misunderstand how things work:
> 
> 1) Saying "Cannot perform global replacement in find-definition 
> results", with the explicit qualifier "global", potentially implies that 
> a "local" replacement in find-definition results can be done. But it 
> cannot. We can't do either currently for technical reasons.
> 
> We don't want to do "local" replacements in find-definition results also 
> for logical reasons, but that's just the reason why we're not in a hurry 
> to remove the technical limitation.
> 
> 2) The message implies 'r' is limited to "global" replacement. But it 
> can easily do "partial" replacement, as long as the command that 
> produces the list returns "match xrefs". dired-do-find-regexp, for 
> example. Or project-find-regexp, when called with C-u, and the user 
> specifies a specific directory. They will return a "partial" list of 
> matches, compared to the full project search.

Sorry, I'm unconvinced.  AFAICT, you are reiterating issues and
arguments we already have been through.



reply via email to

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