[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: next-error-last-buffer
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: next-error-last-buffer |
Date: |
Thu, 27 May 2004 19:53:33 -0400 |
Maybe if there's more than one next-error capable buffers that are
linked together (e.g. occur on a diff) then C-u next-error should
advance through the "underlying" next-error buffer (the diff) while
next-error should advance through the "overlay" next-error buffer
(the occur).
That is a bad solution because it requires people to remember
yet another feature. The other solution is better, because
it is more likely that the intended thing will happen
as a result of use of the other existing features.
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, (continued)
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/27
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/27
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/29
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/30
Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/25
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/25
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/26
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/28
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Ted Zlatanov, 2004/05/29
- Re: next-error-last-buffer, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/29
Re: next-error-last-buffer, Juri Linkov, 2004/05/25