GNU bug report logs - #29785
[PATCH] Implement separate eww history

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 29785 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 29785 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #3 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:56:53 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

It's always bugged me that eww uses the minibuffer history when
reading which url to open. Attached a patch to enable an optional
separate history.

I'm assuming this would target 27.1

Regards

Robert

[0001-Add-support-for-eww-url-history.patch (text/x-diff, inline)]

From e805d28d8ef16db59347f44faf39fde5fd329fc6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:20:34 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add support for eww url history

* doc/misc/eww.texi (Basics): Document eww-separate-history

* etc/NEWS : Add documentation for eww-separate-history

* lisp/net/eww.el (eww-separate-history): Define.
(eww): Use it.
---
 doc/misc/eww.texi |  6 ++++++
 etc/NEWS          |  4 ++++
 lisp/net/eww.el   | 12 +++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/doc/misc/eww.texi b/doc/misc/eww.texi
index e9b544fbde..7fc6b068d9 100644
--- a/doc/misc/eww.texi
+++ b/doc/misc/eww.texi
@@ -85,6 +85,12 @@ Basics
 either prefix the file name with @code{file://} or use the command
 @kbd{M-x eww-open-file}.
 
+@vindex eww-separate-history
+@cindex eww
+  If you want to keep the history of URI's you've opened separate from
+the default minibuffer history, set @code{eww-separate-history} to
+@code{t}
+
 @findex eww-quit
 @findex eww-reload
 @findex eww-copy-page-url
diff --git a/etc/NEWS b/etc/NEWS
index 784c608041..df1520566a 100644
--- a/etc/NEWS
+++ b/etc/NEWS
@@ -900,6 +900,10 @@ bigger than the current window).
 avoid accidentally accessing remote links may rebind 'w' and 'u' in
 'eww-link-keymap' to it.
 
++++
+*** The new user variable 'eww-separate-history' causes eww to use a
+separate minibuffer history if non-nil
+
 ** Ido
 
 ---
diff --git a/lisp/net/eww.el b/lisp/net/eww.el
index bff592c3fe..b480710b98 100644
--- a/lisp/net/eww.el
+++ b/lisp/net/eww.el
@@ -113,6 +113,15 @@ eww-restore-reload-prompt
   :group 'eww
   :type 'string)
 
+(defcustom eww-separate-history nil
+  "If t, keep the URI history separate from the minibuffer history.
+If nil, use the default minibuffer history list when prompting
+for a URI.  Note that this history is only used when prompting,
+it is separate from those used by `eww-list-histories'."
+  :version "27.1"
+  :group 'eww
+  :type 'boolean)
+
 (defcustom eww-history-limit 50
   "Maximum number of entries to retain in the history."
   :version "25.1"
@@ -218,6 +227,7 @@ eww-valid-certificate
 (defvar eww-data nil)
 (defvar eww-history nil)
 (defvar eww-history-position 0)
+(defvar eww-uri-history nil)
 
 (defvar eww-local-regex "localhost"
   "When this regex is found in the URL, it's not a keyword but an address.")
@@ -250,7 +260,7 @@ eww
 	  (prompt (concat "Enter URL or keywords"
 			  (if uris (format " (default %s)" (car uris)) "")
 			  ": ")))
-     (list (read-string prompt nil nil uris))))
+     (list (read-string prompt nil (and eww-separate-history 'eww-uri-history) uris))))
   (setq url (eww--dwim-expand-url url))
   (pop-to-buffer-same-window
    (if (eq major-mode 'eww-mode)
-- 
2.15.0.276.g89ea799ff

Message #6 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:20:32 +0100

Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com> writes:

> +@vindex eww-separate-history
> +@cindex eww
> +  If you want to keep the history of URI's you've opened separate from
> +the default minibuffer history, set @code{eww-separate-history} to
> +@code{t}

I don't think this needs to be configurable -- the history should just
be a separate one.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #9 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:23:02 +0100

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +@vindex eww-separate-history
>> +@cindex eww
>> +  If you want to keep the history of URI's you've opened separate from
>> +the default minibuffer history, set @code{eww-separate-history} to
>> +@code{t}
>
> I don't think this needs to be configurable -- the history should just
> be a separate one.

So do I, but I don't want to elicit any 'how dare you change
behaviour' comments a year from now.

Robert

Message #12 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:17:02 +0200

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:56:53 +0100
> 
> +@vindex eww-separate-history
> +@cindex eww
> +  If you want to keep the history of URI's you've opened separate from
> +the default minibuffer history, set @code{eww-separate-history} to
> +@code{t}

Why should EWW usurp the history of URLs?  If we are going to provide
a history of URLs, it should be common to EWW and browse-url at least,
I think, and perhaps other commands that prompt for URL, if there are
such commands.

> ++++
> +*** The new user variable 'eww-separate-history' causes eww to use a
> +separate minibuffer history if non-nil

Period at the end of a sentence, and also EWW should be capitalized, I
think.

Btw, I see lately some kind of tendency to write long multi-line
sentences at the beginning of NEWS entries.  This is the opposite of
what we should try doing: NEWS is visited in Outline mode, so we
should facilitate that by having short headers, to allow users hide
the text of the entry.

Thanks.

Message #15 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:36:58 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:56:53 +0100
>> 
>> +@vindex eww-separate-history
>> +@cindex eww
>> +  If you want to keep the history of URI's you've opened separate from
>> +the default minibuffer history, set @code{eww-separate-history} to
>> +@code{t}
>
> Why should EWW usurp the history of URLs?

The patch does not change the existing history support of browse-url,
so 'usurp' feels harsh.

> If we are going to provide
> a history of URLs, it should be common to EWW and browse-url at least,
> I think, and perhaps other commands that prompt for URL, if there are
> such commands.

I could make the argument that URLs visited via browse-url are
passed to an external browser, so it's not up to Emacs to remember
that history, unlike ones visited internally using EWW.

>> ++++
>> +*** The new user variable 'eww-separate-history' causes eww to use a
>> +separate minibuffer history if non-nil
>
> Period at the end of a sentence, and also EWW should be capitalized, I
> think.
>
> Btw, I see lately some kind of tendency to write long multi-line
> sentences at the beginning of NEWS entries.  This is the opposite of
> what we should try doing: NEWS is visited in Outline mode, so we
> should facilitate that by having short headers, to allow users hide
> the text of the entry.

There appears to be quite a mix of those two styles in NEWS. I'll see
what I can do to cut down the initial sentence.

Robert

Message #18 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:02:53 +0200

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:23:02 +0100
> Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > I don't think this needs to be configurable -- the history should just
> > be a separate one.
> 
> So do I, but I don't want to elicit any 'how dare you change
> behaviour' comments a year from now.

The behavior doesn't change, though.

Message #21 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:50:34 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:23:02 +0100
>> Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>> > I don't think this needs to be configurable -- the history should just
>> > be a separate one.
>> 
>> So do I, but I don't want to elicit any 'how dare you change
>> behaviour' comments a year from now.
>
> The behavior doesn't change, though.

As currently proposed, no. But if I enabled the separate history
unconditionally then it would.

Robert

Message #24 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:54:25 +0200

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:36:58 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Why should EWW usurp the history of URLs?
> 
> The patch does not change the existing history support of browse-url,
> so 'usurp' feels harsh.

It's just a word.  It feels strange to me to call URL history by name
that includes "eww" as a substring.  IMO it should be a general URL
history, like we have for files.

But that's just one opinion.

> I could make the argument that URLs visited via browse-url are
> passed to an external browser, so it's not up to Emacs to remember
> that history, unlike ones visited internally using EWW.

url-history.el seems to disagree.

> >> ++++
> >> +*** The new user variable 'eww-separate-history' causes eww to use a
> >> +separate minibuffer history if non-nil
> >
> > Period at the end of a sentence, and also EWW should be capitalized, I
> > think.
> >
> > Btw, I see lately some kind of tendency to write long multi-line
> > sentences at the beginning of NEWS entries.  This is the opposite of
> > what we should try doing: NEWS is visited in Outline mode, so we
> > should facilitate that by having short headers, to allow users hide
> > the text of the entry.
> 
> There appears to be quite a mix of those two styles in NEWS. I'll see
> what I can do to cut down the initial sentence.

Thanks.  In many cases, like this one, it's very simple:

  *** New user variable 'eww-separate-history'.
  If non-nil, this causes EWW to use a separate minibuffer history.
  The default is nil.

Message #27 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:27:57 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:36:58 +0100
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Why should EWW usurp the history of URLs?
>> 
>> The patch does not change the existing history support of browse-url,
>> so 'usurp' feels harsh.
>
> It's just a word.  It feels strange to me to call URL history by name
> that includes "eww" as a substring.  IMO it should be a general URL
> history, like we have for files.
>

It's the url history of M-x eww, but it's just a name.

> But that's just one opinion.
>
>> I could make the argument that URLs visited via browse-url are
>> passed to an external browser, so it's not up to Emacs to remember
>> that history, unlike ones visited internally using EWW.
>
> url-history.el seems to disagree.


OK, so that does even more, it remembers url history across
sessions. I never noticed it because:

a) It's disabled by default.

b) As far as I can tell, nothing uses it for actual completion of
urls.

So the final implementation should

1. Enable it by default
2. Hook up eww to it
3. Hook up browse-url to it
4. and probably various things in org

Note that eww has a separate history mechanism also to track the urls
you visit during a session (there may be a way to persist that as
well).

I'm thinking 3 different history mechanisms is too much. I can work on
connecting at least eww to the existing url-history mechanism over the
holidays, if you think that's the right direction [1]

> Thanks.  In many cases, like this one, it's very simple:
>
>   *** New user variable 'eww-separate-history'.
>   If non-nil, this causes EWW to use a separate minibuffer history.
>   The default is nil.

Thanks for that.

Robert

Footnotes: 
[1] And if I really get going I'll try to unify the 4 different ways
we have of determining what URL we think is at point

Message #30 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 20:43:53 +0200

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  larsi <at> gnus.org
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:50:34 +0100
> 
> >> So do I, but I don't want to elicit any 'how dare you change
> >> behaviour' comments a year from now.
> >
> > The behavior doesn't change, though.
> 
> As currently proposed, no. But if I enabled the separate history
> unconditionally then it would.

No, it won't.  M-p and M-n would still work as they did before.

Message #33 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:58:29 +0100

Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com> writes:

>> If we are going to provide
>> a history of URLs, it should be common to EWW and browse-url at least,
>> I think, and perhaps other commands that prompt for URL, if there are
>> such commands.
>
> I could make the argument that URLs visited via browse-url are
> passed to an external browser, so it's not up to Emacs to remember
> that history, unlike ones visited internally using EWW.

I think it would make sense for all commands that handle URLs to share a
common history.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #36 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 20:01:33 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  larsi <at> gnus.org
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:50:34 +0100
>> 
>> >> So do I, but I don't want to elicit any 'how dare you change
>> >> behaviour' comments a year from now.
>> >
>> > The behavior doesn't change, though.
>> 
>> As currently proposed, no. But if I enabled the separate history
>> unconditionally then it would.
>
> No, it won't.  M-p and M-n would still work as they did before.

The history list they would cycle through would be the eww history
list, not the global minibuffer history list.  What am I missing?

Robert

Message #39 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:14:36 +0200

> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  larsi <at> gnus.org
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 20:01:33 +0100
> 
> >> As currently proposed, no. But if I enabled the separate history
> >> unconditionally then it would.
> >
> > No, it won't.  M-p and M-n would still work as they did before.
> 
> The history list they would cycle through would be the eww history
> list, not the global minibuffer history list.  What am I missing?

You don't miss anything.  I'm saying that user-visible behavior won't
change, as users don't care where the history is stored.  Therefore, a
defcustom, which is by definition for users and not for developers, is
not needed, at least not IMO.

Message #42 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:25:54 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  larsi <at> gnus.org
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 20:01:33 +0100
>> 
>> >> As currently proposed, no. But if I enabled the separate history
>> >> unconditionally then it would.
>> >
>> > No, it won't.  M-p and M-n would still work as they did before.
>> 
>> The history list they would cycle through would be the eww history
>> list, not the global minibuffer history list.  What am I missing?
>
> You don't miss anything.  I'm saying that user-visible behavior won't
> change, as users don't care where the history is stored.  Therefore, a
> defcustom, which is by definition for users and not for developers, is
> not needed, at least not IMO.

OK. I'll just enable stuff and wait for the inevitable fallout.

Robert

Message #45 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:30:15 +0200

Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com> writes:

> OK. I'll just enable stuff and wait for the inevitable fallout.

I guess you did and there was no fallout, so I'm closing this bug
report.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #50 received at 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 29785 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29785: [PATCH] Implement separate eww history
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:21:51 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> OK. I'll just enable stuff and wait for the inevitable fallout.
>
> I guess you did and there was no fallout, so I'm closing this bug
> report.  :-)

No, people suggested a bunch of additions/extensions, and I haven't
gotten around to implementing them yet. OK to close

Robert

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.