Hello Thomas,

Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim@fitzsim.org> writes:

> [...]
> The scenario I'd like you to make work with a minimal patch is:
> Scenario 3+1 + (setq message-expand-name-standard-ui t).
>
> Did you try that? 

Yes.

> I'm pretty sure if you get that working you'll find that we don't need
> eudc-capf-complete in completion-at-point-functions (yet), since what
> was there will already do what eudc-capf-complete was trying to
> achieve.
>
> Basically, this whole part of the discussion I've been thinking in terms
> of "(setq message-expand-name-standard-ui t)".
>
> When message-expand-name-standard-ui is nil, I think we've determined
> that eudc-capf-complete's presence in completion-at-point-functions
> breaks EUDC functionality.  Do you concur?

Yes.

> If that's the case we should probably remove eudc-capf-complete from
> completion-at-point-functions for Emacs 29.1, since that would
> represent a regression.

That's one option of addressing this case. The other option would be to
apply the last patch I sent to add `(setq-local completion-styles...)`
to `eudc-capf-complete` (because this is a defect and needs to be added
in any case). Albeit with an updated message, because the message
pretends to fix the bug, which it apparently doesn't.

My preferred outcome would thus be:

1) Re-remove the `(add-hook 'completion-at-point-functions
#'eudc-capf-complete ...)` line from message.el.

2) Add the `(setq-local completion-styles ...)` fix to
`eudc-capf-complete`.

3) See if we can figure a root cause for the completion styles breakage
within reasonable time and effort.

The attached patch implements 1) and 2).

> I now understand that the intent of the code that was there before we
> added eudc-capf-complete was:
>
> message-expand-name-standard-ui nil => use EUDC multi-selector UI
> message-expand-name-standard-ui t   => use completion-at-point selector UI
>
> But the second case was already broken before we added
> eudc-capf-complete.

Indeed.

And it also broken when not using EUDC at all, as I reported in my
last message ('eudc removed from `message-expand-name-databases`).

> I want to understand and fix that case.
> [...]

My suspicion is that something about the completion styles was changed.
Mu next step would hence be to meditate over the `git blame` of
minibuffer.el.


Looking forward to your thoughts,

  --alexander