From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Benjamin Riefenstahl Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#42136: 26.1.90; rgrep uses a directory that was not actually given Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:51:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87k0zobtsh.fsf@riefenstahl-linux.mecom.de> References: <877dvo25nt.fsf@riefenstahl-thinkpad.mecom.de> <2b267ca4-7265-9018-1429-c422ced10823@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40357"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Stefan Monnier , 42136@debbugs.gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 30 18:45:57 2020 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 1jqIxF-0008j6-96 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 18:17:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34772 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jqFl7-0001pX-Fy for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:53:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48510) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jqFl0-0001pJ-Ed for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:53:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38865) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jqFl0-0007DN-6B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:53:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jqFl0-0000Qz-40 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:53:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Benjamin Riefenstahl Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:53:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 42136 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 42136-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B42136.15935215281604 (code B ref 42136); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:53:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 42136) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jun 2020 12:52:08 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50411 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jqFk8-0000Pn-78 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:52:08 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-dmz1.mecom.de ([194.213.98.84]:55021) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jqFk6-0000PH-Gm for 42136@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:52:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.226.74] (helo=riefenstahl-linux.mecom.de.mecom.de) by smtp-dmz1.mecom.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jqFjy-0005YL-SY; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:51:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2b267ca4-7265-9018-1429-c422ced10823@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:26:58 +0300") X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:182571 Archived-At: Hi Dimitry, Thanks for taking a look. Dmitry Gutov writes: > RET is bound to minibuffer-complete-and-exit. So the result seems > expected. The result seems as designed. I expected something different. > Did this scenario behave differently in some recent version of Emacs? Probably not. > To be fair, the docstring of this command says it behaves differently > with different values of minibuffer-completion-confirm. The variations here seem be the same as the MUSTMATCH parameter to read-file-name. I had tested those and none of those seem to do what I want. It's not like I do not like completion in general, but for me and in this situation I want it only on-demand (with TAB), not automatic and with almost no feedback about the choice that was actually made. I may just learn my lesson here for now, but I'm not sure this is good. Also I wanted to hear if anybody has a tip about some customization that I was missing. benny