bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#63829: 29.0.90; project-find-file's future history breaks with commo


From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: bug#63829: 29.0.90; project-find-file's future history breaks with common-parent-directory
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 21:25:58 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0

On 23/08/2023 20:52, Juri Linkov wrote:
- The new option renamed to project-file-history-behavior with values t or
   'relativize. I thought about removing it, but after all, the change is
   a bit exotic, so there's bound to be people who would want to disable
   it. And the new name is also more extensible (extra behaviors I could
   think of by now: 'relativize-when-exists or 'separate -- the latter could
   mean to use separate history var other than file-name-history). No hurry
  to implement any of those, though.
- project-or-external-find-file needs some special handling of the
   relativization when external file names are chosen. Better solutions
   welcome.
- Announcement in NEWS. :-)

A typo in NEWS?  'relative' -> 'relativize'

Fixed, thanks.

Also to reduce confusion for everyone who will look at it,
better to rename the property to 'project-root' in:

     (propertize file 'project (project-root project))))

It seemed shorter and just as obvious when looking at the propertized value. But if everyone thinks the change should be made, I don't mind.

PS: The docstring mentions the limitation: "This only affects
history entries added by earlier calls to `project-find-file'".
There is no way to remove this limitation?  Maybe some clever way
to match every file name from the history against the list
of all known project roots to find the root on the file name
without property.  This will also work when the file history
is restored from the desktop file or by savehist.el.

That is doable, at the cost of having imprecise results (and some odd-looking history entries from time to time). Is that cost low enough?





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]