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

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

bug#7787: 23.2; wrong meaning for mouse-2 while in search mode


From: Perry Wagle
Subject: bug#7787: 23.2; wrong meaning for mouse-2 while in search mode
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 21:40:21 -0800

This thread is very familiar:  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/2011-11/msg00116.html


On Jan 16, 2020, at 9:19 PM, Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> wrote:

found 7787 26.3
found 7787 28.0.50
thanks

Perry Wagle <wagle@mac.com> writes:

I have a Mac, so I use Aquamacs.  I have no idea how closely it tracks gnu emacs.

I upgraded Aquamacs a few weeks ago, and I don’t see a number of customizations I’ve made over the years.

Way back when, I made a customization to an .el file in the libraries that fixed the problem.  Since then, I am pretty sure I moved that customization to one of the zillions .emacs like files, but don’t see it anywhere.

The problem was that I wanted to double click on a word (variable name etc), start a search, and middle mouse to paste that word into the search-for buffer.  Instead, it overrides the search and just pastes at the cursor.

I tried to do what you asked in aquamacs, but it didn’t appear to do anything.

Thank you, that makes things clearer.

I realize now that I was trying the wrong thing, and I've been able to
reproduce this on both Mac and GNU/Linux using GNU Emacs.

This problem seems to be specific to isearch, due to the way isearch
works.  isearch leaves point in the current buffer while searching,
which makes the yanked text go there instead of the input area even
when mouse-yank-at-point is t.

Incidentally, there is currently a discussion about changing how
isearch works in this regard.  I would assume, but don't know for
certain, that such changes would also resolve this issue.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2020-01/msg00388.html

Meanwhile, please send the changes you had to make to get this to
work, should you happen to find them.  Maybe they will be necessary
still, depending on the outcome of the above discussion.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas


reply via email to

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