[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding |
Date: |
Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:08:41 -0800 (PST) |
> Would something like the following be acceptable?
>
> The search commands that are described in "Incremental Search" and
> "Nonincremental Search" perform character folding by default, thus
> matching equivalent character sequences.
>
> If that's no good, an alternative might be to say that "Some search
> commands ... perform character folding", and to add a note along the
> lines of
>
> To determine whether character folding applies to a particular search
> command, see the Help text for that command.
Isn't it correct and sufficient to say that non-regexp
incrementalsearch uses character folding by default?
IOW, isn't this default behavior true for all incremental
search commands except regexp search, and only for those
commands (no non-incremental search commands)?
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Mike Kupfer, 2015/11/28
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/29
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Mike Kupfer, 2015/11/29
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Artur Malabarba, 2015/11/30
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/30
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Mike Kupfer, 2015/11/30
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/30
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Artur Malabarba, 2015/11/29
- bug#22043: 25.0.50; search-forward and char folding, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/29