RE: master fe939b3 1/2: Fix reference to `tags-loop-continue' in doc string

[Drew Adams]

> > It begs the question why xrefs replaced a 'do the next thing' type
> > binding with a 'go back' type binding in the first place.
> 
> Because it's more useful. The xref UI presents you with all matches
> right away, and you choose before visiting, so you don't really need
> the "go next" binding 98% of the time.

I would say "also useful" and "differently useful",
or "sometimes more useful" - not "more useful".

Is `occur' (show all matches, let you get directly
to any, in any order) more useful than incremental
search?

Or do you use them both, for different things, in
different contexts?  I use them both.

FWIW, I was the first to provide a way to get
occur-like behavior during completion (in Icicles),
to let you search or search-&-replace without
needing to visit each matching occurrence, in turn.

So I fully recognize the advantages of direct
access to search/find hits over the more exhaustive
approach of visit-each-in-order.

But I also recognize that a single tool - even a
good, flexible one - is not necessarily the best
tool for all jobs.

It was fine to add `xref' to the tool kit.  Great.
It was not so fine (IMHO) to have it take over the
longstanding keys used for the existing `do the
next thing' commands (e.g., `dired-do-search',
`dired-do-query-replace').

Addition, not replacement, would have been TRT.
And yes, I think it was done precipitously, in
addition to not being necessary.

 "xrefs replaced a 'do the next thing' type
  binding with a 'go back' type binding"

> > xref-pop-marker-stack should use a different
> > binding, and M-, should be fileloop-continue,
> > but the xref one has existed for 5 years now.
> 
> Exactly. That ship has sailed.

The bindings were repurposed, and perhaps it's
too late to back out that mistake.

But why is it too late to rehabilitate the
`do the next thing' commands and their doc,
and give them key bindings once again?  Why
promote only `xref', essentially deprecating
the others?

Why not promote (document, bind, etc.) both
approaches?  We don't denigrate Isearch just
because we have `occur'.  Why was it good to
_replace_ the `do the next' commands with
`xref'?

> If you are still not convinced, please go
> ahead and look up the older discussions for
> our reasoning.

I read it all at the time, argued against
repurposing those longstanding keys at the
time, and I'm still not convinced that Emacs
did the right thing in this regard.

I'm convinced of the utility of `xref' (and
I always was).  I'm not convinced that the
existing commands/keys had to be sacrificed
in order to promote what you see as "more
useful" (even perhaps as best for all uses).