bug#7700: 24.0.50; C-y binding withing Isearch mode

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi Stefan,

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 02:52:49PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>>> I suggest instead that any standard forward movement command while in
> >>>> isearch forward mode should select the text to grab WITHOUT any
> >>>> prefix key.
> >> That might be a good choice, but:
> >> - we lack experimental evidence for that.
> >> - it would probably be too big a change to have that as a default behavior.
> > IMHO, that proposal would make text grabbing in Isearch (a) More
> > powerful (you could use every movement command to grab text), and (b)
> > easier/simpler (you already know the movement commands).

> Compared to the use of a prefix, there is an important difference: the
> prefix tells isearch that the next command is a movement command, so it
> can be used with *any* command (and can lead to surprises if the command
> is not a movement command), whereas in the absence of a prefix, isearch
> would need to know which commands are "movement commands", and this
> knowledge would always tend to be partial, so it will fail with
> some commands.

> > The only drawback I can see is to give up the possibility of exit
> > Isearch mode with a movement command, but IMO, this loss is
> > insignificant compared with the benefits.

> Depends significantly on your usage pattern.  I know such a change to
> the default behavior would cause screams and never ending arguments.
> So we'd fist have to see this change in action for a while to
> demonstrate that the benefit is worth the cost of transitioning.

I would like to express my strong opposition to all these wild and
visionary schemes which would radically alter isearch.  We don't need
them; isearch works very well as it currently is.

All this talk about encumbering standard commands with prefix keys
"telling isearch that the next command is a movement command", vi-style,
has drowned out the proper topic of this thread (a minimal change to
`isearch-key-map'), and has become tedious and depressing horribly
quickly (IMAO).

Experience shows that threads like this one go nowhere very slowly,
sometimes with 50 or 100 contributions.  They waste time, and make
participation in the list very tedious.  Can we not develop the
discipline not to allow threads like this one to explode out of control?

I think it would be best if proposed developments like this are
implemented rather than endlessly discussed.  We shouldn't really be
discussing big UI changes unless somebody has implemented them and
enthusiastically recommends them.

In the mean time, I would still not be against moving isearch-yank-line
to some key other than C-y.  How about this idea?

>         Stefan

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).