Subject: Re: bug#74287: [PATCH] Rework history Isearch for Eshell

From: James Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:07:07 +0530

Jim Porter wrote:

> On 11/26/2024 1:41 AM, James Thomas via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the
> Swiss army knife of text editors wrote:
>> My 2c: I now think it's better to hold out for something with way less
>> code, using capf.
>
> Like mentioned in the emacs-devel list, that's probably how *I'd* want
> a command history search implementation to use, but I also think that
> an Isearch interface makes a lot of sense as an option, depending on
> user preferences. As far as I can tell, we'd have to write different
> code for each of these styles (i.e. you can't just make Isearch use
> capf). Though as mentioned I'm not very familiar with Isearch's
> internals.
>
> So long as this doesn't prevent a capf-based implementation (and I'm
> guessing it wouldn't, since that would just be a new option), I think
> we could merge this patch.

Okay. In that case, my preference would be for it to be a separate
module ala eshell-smart et. al., if possible; the motive being easing
the maintenance burden.

> I also prefer to have Shell and Eshell work the same way unless
> there's some compelling reason why they should be different.

Shell could change to be like eshell, for that, no? (like Wittgenstein's
bit with the ruler) ;-)

--