Increase default search-for-text entry field to more characters
I just tested on evince 3.30.2; the maximum amount of characters to input into the search field is 513 characters or so.
I propose to extend this limit.
I will next explain why:
- I have many .pdf files open normally; these are from e. g. university lectures or books in .pdf variants. Often I can copy/paste from this .pdf just fine, but sometimes there are scanned-in pictures. Since OCR isn't working that well, I actually type in what is written in these pictures into the ... search field. :)
In other words, I sometimes do not use the top-entry as a search area but instead as an input-box for where I can type in text, and then copy/paste that into my editor (where I save this into some text file).
I do not think that many other people "misuse" the search field like I do here, which is a fair counter-argument to my suggestion here.
On the other hand, a limit of 513 characters also seems entirely arbitrary to me because ... who decided on this limit and why? Why not 480? 620 characters? All of these seem arbitrary choices to me. Actually, the ideal solution would be to allow the user to decide for how many characters to "search" for, perhaps in an option dialogue. I am not sure if this would be worth the coding effort, so a much simpler ad-hoc "fix" would be to extend this limit to ... I don't know ... 5000 characters? Something that may never be triggered?
I tried to find where this was so I could automatically change it via ruby scripts, before I compile evince from source (I install everything from source), but my C knowledge is very limited - so it was simpler for me to suggest this issue.
Of course it would be great if there would be an additional widget preference for where people could set/toggle this, including an "unlimited" checkbox meaning that people do not want to get a limit to that gtk entry (I assume it is a gtk entry; I know a little bit of gtk through the ruby-gtk bindings).
Anyway, if this is unwanted or too much work, don't worry, feel free to just close this issue request. Thanks for reading at the least; I hope I could explain the use case I had.