From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28625 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2015 02:28:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 35500 Received: (qmail 3719 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2015 02:28:26 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Greg Klanderman To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: PATCH: muddled completion search status Reply-To: Greg Klanderman Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:23:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <150616171549.ZM28192@torch.brasslantern.com> (Bart Schaefer's message of "Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:15:49 -0700") Message-ID: <871thbvzsg.fsf@lwm.klanderman.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux) References: <23493.1434450587@thecus.kiddle.eu> <26384.1434494110@thecus.kiddle.eu> <150616171549.ZM28192@torch.brasslantern.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1434507793; bh=/EfYAI6SF90GyCcOJxv5QxB0hOWVjI3+Ubcvqn82aIY=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Reply-To:Date: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=e3ijzt9x8iFqJxTyvAG2KpxvJMAWMynj1hxHs3mOd+V5PzTY+STgNPC3knegwe4Xb 1pKsQjw+p4U+4QKFfRD5IWqAZQCMOKiaPNDgoQw2u8Rf3ShIDudpHKRoc5Xh0/dTOc IvZrlcb/ZJwTnD8GdSayjoIdafJlnMSUJOaA6LXOq83EZB+MPWYSQfltzckuFbz352 9ov51rxaxNNJcFJTRjQvsoZniViLqQLDkwQUs41W98WlCry/l/w3BktXXx71lIXkxs CTfh8K/ldPSWsRTHSbbi8/beYYNHbmhiq3IbDPL30DjTmo8KUqglTfjI4CuU6XTR1c mDDi3AD0rXO8w== >>>>> On June 16, 2015 Bart Schaefer wrote: > Unless I misunderstand you, repeating a search in emacs searches again > for the last-searched-for string no matter which direction the new > search is going. The same is true for vi's "n" or "N" command for > searching again up/downward. Why do you think it's wrong to restore > the last search string? I would prefer not to break similarity (I won't > go so far as to say "compatibility") with emacs in this regard. If I understand, he's actually making it more emacs-compatible. Emacs only restores your last search when you hit the same direction search keys twice in a row; if you hit C-s C-r is does not restore the last search, it merely switches direction. Greg