[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?)
From: |
Juri Linkov |
Subject: |
Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?) |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:21:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
> It is easy to add a test for Info-hide-note-references, but I think it
> would be more convenient to skip the `*Note ' tag even when it is visible.
> Searching for "not" is too tiresome when search stops at every cross
> reference.
>
> A search for `not' is going to stop at many places. Searching should
> be predictable. Please do not start adding tons of exceptions and
> "exceptions to exceptions" to searching by trying to double guess the
> user.
>
> A case-insensitive non-word search for `not' _should_ match `*Note'.
`*Note' is a special tag, not part of the text. For instance,
Web browsers don't display tags, and don't allow them to interfere
while searching. Some browsers provide two search modes: search for
text including link text, and separate mode to search only link text.
And nobody asks for an ability to search for HTML tags like `<a href='.
So I'm sure many people will like to skip `*Note' in Info too.
With my patch this is easily configurable with only one function
which can be redefined to match `*Note', or to skip it, or to search
only inside cross-reference text, or anything else.
Since Emacs Info browser is too controversial piece of software,
let's leave the current default with only one change to skip "see ".
--
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), (continued)
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), David Kastrup, 2005/03/21
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/22
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), David Kastrup, 2005/03/22
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Juri Linkov, 2005/03/22
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), David Kastrup, 2005/03/22
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Juri Linkov, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Luc Teirlinck, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Juri Linkov, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Luc Teirlinck, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?),
Juri Linkov <=
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Stefan Monnier, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Luc Teirlinck, 2005/03/23
- RE: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Drew Adams, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Luc Teirlinck, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Kim F. Storm, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Luc Teirlinck, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/25
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Juri Linkov, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Luc Teirlinck, 2005/03/23
- Re: Todays exercise of sanity (or does "see" really match "not"?), Richard Stallman, 2005/03/25