n and N after reverse search with ?

[xcko]

After doing a reverse search with ?, n goes to the next forward result, not the next result in reverse.

This is the opposite of vi/vim behaviour.

[aeosynth]

The intention is not to be bug for bug compatible with vi(m)

i prefer the vis behavior

[oxalorg]

In my opinion, since the search already wraps around by default, there is no need of ? at all. But maybe I haven't used it enough for it to be of any actual value to me.

[Shugyousha]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 02:10:44AM -0800, Mitesh Shah wrote: In my opinion, since the search already wraps around by default, there is no need of ? at all.

For me there is. If you work with bigger files (100MB+) it often happens that the string you are searching for occurs hundreds of times in a file. You do not want to cycle through all hits if you know that the particular hit you are looking for is further up from your cursor position. I have no problem with the current behaviour of vis though.

[erf]

I would prefer it to be consistent with vim. n means to repeat last search, so it should search backwords after ?.

[xcko]

erf wrote:

I would prefer it to be consistent with vim. It makes sense to me to use 'n' to search again in the same direction.

I would also prefer that it be internally consistent. ; and , both switch directions after using TtFf. Why should there be a difference when searching across lines to searching within a line?

[martanne]

Like @aeosynth I prefer the current behavior for interactive usage.

I like the fact that n (N) always searches forwards (backwards) irrespective of how the initial search was performed (e.g. *, #, /pattern, ?pattern, :-/pattern :+/pattern etc). There can be times when quite some time passes between the initial search and the need to advance to the next (previous) match. In that case I most likely know whether I want to go forwards or backwards, but not how the initial search was performed.

As far as inconsistencies are concerned gn and gN always operate on the next/previous match irrespective of the initial search direction. So vim is not really self-consistent either.

It could probably be argued that the vim behavior is preferable for non-interactive usage (e.g. macros, mappings etc.) if you want to skip a couple of matches independent of the search direction.

[lafrenierejm]

@martanne wrote:

As far as inconsistencies are concerned gn and gN always operate on the next/previous match irrespective of the initial search direction. So vim is not really self-consistent either.

As @xcko pointed out, vis is interally inconsistent with how it handles ; and , versus the behavior of repeating searched. This seems undesirable.