From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#36454: 26.2.90; feature request - Insert char by hex tab completion or C-x 8 RET ffe Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:38:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <9ad40946-43b5-440c-958d-35da10ab2669@default> References: <<<>>> <<<<87r27016xo.fsf@mouse.gnus.org>>>> <<<>>> <<<<4087f726-f9e7-4bc5-a9b3-7d24d9b7f7c5@default>>>> <<<<2f469306-98d3-8735-4d0d-61aae53321d0@gmail.com>>>> <<<<8a8360df-afe2-4ae8-abac-96e7691f52a6@default>>>> <<<<27479297-ab97-106b-7325-5ac6ef5d0b92@gmail.com>>>> <<<<1981011f-2e19-4f4b-a7ac-8ccd15298b1a@default>>>> <<<<83k1cfy8mp.fsf@gnu.org>>>> <<<6251d2e2-5366-4c06-8c42-811d1aa7d5e3@default>>> <<<831rynwah9.fsf@gnu.org>>> <> <<83wogev83t.fsf@gnu.org>> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="176976"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: van@scratch.space, 36454@debbugs.gnu.org, mrsebastianurban@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 19 16:39:09 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hoU2P-000jwJ-93 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:39:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46020 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hoU2O-0007Qm-7o for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:39:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hoU2K-0007Lr-P7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:39:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hoU2J-0006CR-MM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:39:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47589) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hoU2J-0006CB-JI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:39:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hoU2J-0004cs-8B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:39:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:39:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 36454 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 36454-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B36454.156354713717769 (code B ref 36454); Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:39:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 36454) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jul 2019 14:38:57 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56410 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hoU2D-0004cX-1f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:38:57 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:60710) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hoU2A-0004cI-I0 for 36454@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:38:55 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6JEJOS2174711; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:38:48 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=EMXRFfjPIzQb3J5LE1uj6/LHkfju56/Xyr3aGZYY05M=; b=y43QGo/qhcjg+Pe4mU2C/GYYEtiz8wfhUpw4XLjFF7vFpbEAUpMi3wQ4aLgWtsDe4HzS B3ODTeZCE/BwwfxYB1wIfXGNdVEQPAVkzcpZtN+eyKzvdQiq7n2fiIF7osyXuss57QtG BirlZ4K8FqCW9DrBUl8pT7YJk22SDw2StMTZIi+eeVilRlWGnEpNm+XCy7WgORz5iePN F1R/L4lQt/oRB1RfXXJMtLHSzBXTYV5fuiXztVhiKmChy/PTmIRBt/RBi27kRHOEtEqm L12hCA2JYm0UmyJwlTSK5dO06vmmMnpLLc6hr9om4e/kP+YeYsqImGP+Lmf+ivVgaF7E 6A== Original-Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2tq7xrf0n9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:38:48 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6JEHdNF102508; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:38:47 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2ttc8g6y1s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:38:47 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x6JEcfQT006196; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:38:41 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83wogev83t.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4861.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9322 signatures=668688 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907190160 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9322 signatures=668688 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907190160 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:163419 Archived-At: > > > I hope we agree that wading through 170 completion candidates, let > > > alone 500, is not very convenient, yes? > > > > No, we don't agree that 500 completion candidates > > is a problem. >=20 > I'm surprised to hear that, but maybe I shouldn't. It's not a problem if you can easily filter to narrow the choices. That's the key. Seeing that there are initially 500 matches, and seeing the kinds of matches they are, gives you an interactive, quick, incremental idea how you might want to further narrow the field. But certainly, if you do NOT have a good, quick, powerful way to narrow further then yes, 500 candidates is unwieldy. Even UIs that offer cycling among candidates are inefficient and nearly useless in such a situation, IF they don't also allow for progressive narrowing. > > Completion is not just an aid for entering input. > > It's a way to discover, browse, search, etc. a > > set of information. >=20 > Completion is a very poor means for discovery and browsing. 1. Even if that were true, it is not by itself an argument against improving completion, including for discovery and browsing. 2. I disagree that it is true. I would suggest/guess that you just don't have sufficient experience with a better completion UI than that offered by `emacs -Q'. Ask users of Ivy or Helm whether they use completion that way. > If we want tools for discovering characters, we should have more powerful > commands: Nothing prevents _both_ better completion and other tools for char (and other) discovery. It's not either-or, logically. It may be either-or in terms of commitment of resources to implement such choices. No tool is the best tool for everything. And I don't know anyone who would just reply " completion is the answer" to every problem. > list characters by their Unicode block, by their script, by > their attributes, etc. Couldn't agree more about the utility of such aids. (Contributions are welcome, as some like to say.) > Completion is not for all of that; Completion is not the best tool for everything. Correct. On the other hand, it's likely that any such additional tools you might add could themselves also benefit from better completion. Ask an Ivy or Helm user whether and how completion improves all kinds of existing Emacs commands, including help and other information-provider commands such as apropos and Info.=20 > it can be used for that, but with very low efficiency and user-friendline= ss. That's too big a generalization to be helpful in this discussion. > So we should not judge the need for completion by considering any use > cases other than just completion, i.e. finding a specific character or > a small group of related characters. Need? How about value and usefulness?