From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9598: 24.0.50; completion goes too far Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:25:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317090387 22723 80.91.229.12 (27 Sep 2011 02:26:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:26:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9598@debbugs.gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 27 04:26:23 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R8NNE-0002Xf-VM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 04:26:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59565 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8NNE-0003gn-GP for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:26:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56804) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8NNB-0003gX-A5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:26:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8NNA-0002ta-6a for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:26:17 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:47976) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R8NNA-0002tW-0E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:26:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R8NNu-00088m-0p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:27:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:27:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9598 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9598-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9598.131709039231255 (code B ref 9598); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:27:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9598) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Sep 2011 02:26:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R8NNP-000883-Ra for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:26:32 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183] helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R8NNN-00087v-0b for 9598@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:26:30 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak4GAPsygU5FpZLc/2dsb2JhbABCmSyOR3mBUwEBBAFWIwULCzQSFBgNiC+5aIcLBKBfhEM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,447,1312171200"; d="scan'208";a="138654769" Original-Received: from 69-165-146-220.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.165.146.220]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 26 Sep 2011 22:25:40 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 69EF8660B6; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:25:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:42:18 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:27:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:51907 Archived-At: > However, listing the available completions is a different issue. > Omitting the current buffer there is not beneficial; it only gives > the user less useful information. There, the current buffer > should be included. Yes, that's what I meant by: It's somewhat difficult to distinguish the "all-completions for display" case from the "all-completions for completion" in the existing completion framework. But I'll see how we can get that behavior. -- Stefan