From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#70968: 29.2.50; choose-completion on an emacs22-style completion deletes text after point Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 10:30:45 +0300 Message-ID: <86ed5vzzru.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86bk56jhsp.fsf@gnu.org> <377f815c-52d2-4770-ae85-55e096e104b0@gutov.dev> <8634qhipgj.fsf@gnu.org> <7e05fd14-3499-4811-b4bc-b53186b15408@gutov.dev> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38097"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 70968@debbugs.gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: sbaugh@janestreet.com, Dmitry Gutov , monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 07 09:31:28 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1smpuq-0009l9-C2 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 09:31:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1smpuR-0002dW-9A; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 03:31:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1smpuP-0002cE-NE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 03:31:01 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1smpuP-0006uh-EN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 03:31:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:To:Subject; bh=Jbj+f4KeW8jaxXw1QY2UKGHdoWfnETyyUd5/icbr9/E=; b=stUQ/mPa2Jyg6Sb552qPLheabRjqLG2ouI3RSpAFKnhFo5H8axVL//5YB03WmCmHh71gDp0qMGFfRu3kBFzGsOYQ6i26pk9H1YjNwu8ogdP6HSseu1jSTvcFwdtis/mBCBbQQofkR/iVYjbwXLcv/g0CLVup905fHQXTVsLCVCkcAswkBDHqhXg3yWqB0jIkX5BdegV1xsoPXK9tPSHN6AhUFrsebSFgt+fShYsACe0DR9ePYG4BqBIsLHNNMAURkSWqNBqdd7cKELNyQilnc6+/2/FCxRs2zjLl1QT4fun5Fbh4Da28wbXrQC+B9ZFrktx9TPa1mWnElOybZyOa9w==; Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1smpuP-000185-Rr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 03:31:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 07:31:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 70968 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 70968-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B70968.17256942594333 (code B ref 70968); Sat, 07 Sep 2024 07:31:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 70968) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Sep 2024 07:30:59 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54686 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1smpuN-00017p-4m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 03:30:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58292) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1smpuL-00017c-02 for 70968@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 03:30:57 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1smpuD-0006tW-8Z; Sat, 07 Sep 2024 03:30:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=Jbj+f4KeW8jaxXw1QY2UKGHdoWfnETyyUd5/icbr9/E=; b=OHCgH6EyITOg dYTR9Oj+fzGKqnLeQ6JrShCS7InF0gZhXFVrpGFCpsc7ZcjGp8EzgGF5yqorSGZ+ualxSrf+OJ+sC Y5OxxiUOSXkACmQztvHICTr7zygV/3Vujh+X2KFlqW1cIdzVoF012m32gQqIDoVdYnbHrZxBt1W/k 06OaYi1yPUetpqqY/QZ1azKNVDiSed7iaxOM88UkEiaGyyuXZf3gTpMlyT0dBr4yJOSI7Ecb1Vyv9 DYr90O3Ke45yFSSrdDbHSNf/vWEbYdbo4s+xKTGjxhxTEKPY5BkwYbsoTk66kCgoQQouiY4N8dHsl rteL7NiHnxuTOC3UsFbhpw==; In-Reply-To: <7e05fd14-3499-4811-b4bc-b53186b15408@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Mon, 26 Aug 2024 03:08:56 +0300) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:291356 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 03:08:56 +0300 > Cc: sbaugh@janestreet.com, 70968@debbugs.gnu.org, juri@linkov.net, > monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA > From: Dmitry Gutov > > On 16/05/2024 21:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> I don't think that would be required exactly. > >> > >> The problem here (IIUC) is that completion behaves differently with the > >> emacs22 style depending on whether the execution path went through > >> choose-completion (which is not a method of completion style but a > >> common subroutine) or not (when completion--do-completion performed > >> expansion). > > I understand that much. But what did these two (or their > > then-equivalents) do in Emacs 22 and Emacs 23? > > I'm guessing they behaved incorrectly (or however we want to call the > inconsistent behavior), but I don't have a compiled Emacs 22/23 around, > and they might be difficult to build. > > Note that we fixed bug#48356 not too long ago, which is from the same > general area, and it probably originated from before Emacs 22/23 too. > > It's worth looking for edge cases where we'd strongly prefer the current > behavior, and they might exist, but so far I only know of situations > where the change would be for the better, or the user might be okay with > either (example at the end of https://debbugs.gnu.org/72705#35). Ping! How should we proceed with this bug report?