RE: should search ring contain duplicates?

[Drew Adams]

    >         > I am not interested in considering such a complex proposal.
    >
    >         There is nothing complex about it (with the latest
    >         add-to-history) version.
    >
    >     I was talking about a different proposal, one involving
    >     properties to control lengths.  It was very complex.
    >
    > To be clear, was it this proposal from Juri:
    >
    >     A related feature that specifies the maximum length of
    >     the history list
    >     uses the `history-length' _property_ of the history list _symbol_
    >     to override the default value of the _variable_ `history-length'
    >     for a particular history list.  Exactly the same thing could be
    >     implemented for `history-delete-duplicates', i.e. the property
    >     `history-delete-duplicates' would override its default value
    >     for a particular history list.

    I don't know how you gather this

I don't gather anything. It was meant as a question: "Was it this proposal?"

    when Richard directly replied to the
    posting of yours ... containing the proposal:

        I think that for most uses of a history it makes no sense to keep
        duplicates. I'd vote for making the default value be t and
        letting those few modes where duplicates might make sense (e.g.
        shell-mode?) bind it to nil unless the user has explicitly
        specified otherwise.

        IOW the option values could be:

         nil            - means never remove duplicates
         t (default)    - means remove duplicates, but this can be
                          overridden by a mode (e.g. shell-mode)
         non-nil, non-t - means always remove duplicates (never override)

        This would require code changes only for those few modes
        that want to override the default (t). Plus a change to the
        defcustom.

Precisely why I asked RMS for clarification. You make me glad I did, because
I suspect that you, too, might be confused in trying to interpret Richard's
message.

My proposal said nothing about "properties to control lengths", and I don't
think it was very "complex". Juri's email was a reply to mine, and he did
propose something fairly complex about controlling history-list lengths
using symbol properties. Juri changed the subject to "a related feature" of
his choice without changing the Subject line. In spite of Juri's mention of
"a related feature", there is no real connection between the two proposals.

RMS's reply (sent to me, you are correct) was not clear (to me). Richard has
told me before that he pays little or no attention to the To: destination. I
suspect that he perhaps hit Reply to my email but wrote his response to
Juri's after reading it (!?). Otherwise, I don't understand his reply.
Clarification welcome.

I think things would be clearer if people used emacs-devel (only) in the To:
field and cc'd any additional destinations (it would also be good if
emacs-devel was the default To: value for a Reply).

This is, I suspect, a good example of the confusion that can arise from 1)
not paying attention to To: and 2) not explicitly referencing what you're
talking about. #2 is more important than #1: be clear what you are referring
to.

This has been a long thread with multiple proposals. Richard: please clarify
your position(s).