RE: read-buffer-completion-ignore-case

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > No, nevermind, but thanks.
> 
> Drew, it seems like _every time_ somebody asks you for more 
> information about what you're doing in hopes of trying to
> understand the general problem better, you demure, saying
> "never mind what I'm doing, I just _need_ functionality X."

No, I never said that I "_need_" this. And I never said "never mind what I'm
doing". In fact, I explicitly said that I do _not_ need this, in just so many
words. And there is no "what I'm doing" to nevermind - I'm not doing anything.

I said I might like such a thing, if it were available. And I later said I
realized that it is not too realistic. That is why (and when) I said nevermind -
I dropped it; you can too. ;-)

There is no special reason for the "Suppose I want to do something...when
completion is for buffer names - how can I test that?" (to quote the original
query). I just think it might be handy to be able to recognize buffer
completion.

If you insist "But what are you really trying to do?", there is no answer. I'm
not _really_ trying to do anything. There is no hidden motivation or agenda. I
simply thought it would be useful to be able to recognize buffer-name
completion, just as it can be useful to recognize file-name completion. That was
"what I have in mind". That's all.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned `read-buffer-completion-ignore-case' at all.
My question, from the beginning, was about recognizing buffer-name completion -
no more, no less. Anything else was beside the point, which is what I was trying
to clarify by saying that it didn't respond to what I was requesting.

I accept responsibility for not being 100% clear. I really only had the one
question. And I dropped it, afer talking it out and convincing myself that it
wasn't realistic. Thinking out loud, I guess.

> Of course it requires some effort on your part to describe things, and
> there's some risk that the response will be "no, no, you're 
> approaching the problem all wrong" but it's very hard for Emacs
> to develop good general features without information on what is
> actually needed...

I don't think you need worry about that. When I really need something, or I
really think Emacs could use some good general feature I have in mind, I tend to
provide more than enough detail wrt the problem/need/feature, as I'm sure you're
aware. ;-)

Thanks for trying to help; sorry if I wasted your time.