Re: etags to xref changed navigation

[Stefan Monnier]

>> >> I'm not sure what the problems would be, concretely, but we can always
>> >> solve the problem by making the behavior optional.
>> > I think the reason why it was on M-, before was because repeated
>> > M-. couldn't tell whether you wanted the next, or to start a new search
>> > for whatever point is on now.
>> 
>> That's also my understanding, and I'm suggesting that it distinguishes
>> the two by checking if `M-.` is used consecutively or not
>
> The problem with this proposal is that any command in-between will
> break the chain.  One must remember not event to move point.  That
> could well be problematic: for example, imagine that I'm not sure
> whether I want the current candidate, and to be sure I need to scroll
> the window a bit, because what M-. displayed doesn't show enough
> (e.g., because the window is too small).

IIUC if you break the chain, indeed you wouldn't be able to use `M-.` to
keep going to the next def, but you could still use `M-g M-n` for that.
The extra keyboard movement from `M-.` to `M-g M-n` is expected to be
much less of a burden since you presumably already moved your fingers
away from `M-.` to break the chain.


        Stefan