Subject: RE: bug#22494: still can't search for two spaces

From: Drew Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:29:26 -0800 (PST)

>   > It's not a clear indication that the user wants to return to
>   > lax whitespace matching.  What if s?he deleted the second SPC
>   > and typed a TAB or other whitespace char?  Or typed a SPC char
>   > again?  Would you toggle back again?
> 
> Don't think if it as "toggling" but rather as heeding what is in
> the search string.

Heeding what is in the search string means nothing - or anything.

What is in the search string is a search pattern.  How it is
interpreted is the question.  Literal matching of whitespace
chars is one such interpretation.

I've already agreed that more than one whitespace char in
a row is a reasonable indication that the user wants/expects
whitespace chars to be matched literally.

Why?  Because with lax whitespace matching there is never any
reason to type multiple, contiguous whitespace chars - it
serves no purpose.

(But see also what I wrote about pasting copied text that
might contain multiple, contiguous whitespace chars.)

What is not obvious is whether whitespace search should be
changed away from literal matching just because there are
not (no longer) multiple such chars in a row in the search
pattern.  That was the subject of the text you quoted.