From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:33:59 +0200 Message-ID: <1e1aa5a7-a35b-2ef5-6caf-10e02dd0c6ea@yandex.ru> References: <4c5631d4-9dfd-04c6-c573-b83c67fcc2fa@yandex.ru> <87pni7p83l.fsf@gmail.com> <87h83ipoi0.fsf@gmail.com> <93235eb5-8e04-7182-e2a4-49fbe610ee2b@yandex.ru> <28d4ae09-daca-324b-2fa6-9d7138d710fa@yandex.ru> <87zhh82d8c.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="35065"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 07 15:42:50 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1iSizp-00091E-Ny for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:42:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43594 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iSizo-0003j5-AK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:42:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48888) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iSirQ-0002lc-NB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:34:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iSirP-0004eB-4o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:34:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::332]:38285) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iSirO-0004cs-V9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 09:34:07 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id z19so2676902wmk.3 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 06:34:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LoGDyxtQBr0eT9c/9+3ZHjcF5ma8FXQoH4+jt0hzFak=; b=qYZhh1knAM+sEwHXKkxyO0S9c+hzccIrs2kyDeTCPZic58MZf5EnNaxd31xw8x0TH4 wN5bBpLpPvU76vZyvoC8Z+Dur1bSknu4BRJP9/svoal/v/+zsM6/VlnnaThPRIFgLtX0 0qjF/Ly0tgiOpQk9Y7zpC4oj9/9OsmZHW/ChC8b7Djp77mw1sa1xSO9Vc4LqlEadAvZO mdvukx2rporm2vpkVmkUma6PBfncene6jmD2ss7a3StkdAEHdA2KB51WxzgmGHYvYXC9 dDJwK1a2LH4JjfavtDBOvRNQ1Itt87SqI0BuT3zCQXeF3kbWobiL009X1kwblcVgMfqy YKwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LoGDyxtQBr0eT9c/9+3ZHjcF5ma8FXQoH4+jt0hzFak=; b=eWFMHHd3wjPUwKY2MUDNCQkufY6VJR5ftDIhtpsM4FwWAy0FMqs1i8V5sQYLcxy2mV J2BJZVxSUJh7tCW4E+x9z+ooghhvgZaq/1kBmyy30iF4g5x/fiqVS7EApjnmQW9fEDAG AwpMaXUflwYFbLYXszBmQnnjWIJGqdkw12arpInEPG/bJl3DceC0c2PWfPfiODU3JsXP ZTQYVQw6v0fPcEqMBANNFIRgYd8GA2A0bAYh6phf0Exrys/w6E93dQC/pbXXlZUzU9Kd wHOJ+EBmOGhGm4kLI5TyKW8vSYbTfALSCFIBu2foCP7LC18JSsfVEItXggHcQEnzo+Ij WIog== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXep1zObYErtMBPs85bjHWszXV33tuYIwroDl3rIRyGRxUim2mG JxOb5iNX7fZFvIzeTkXDr6G+H1+7PSM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynh/hW+tkj9sYI06GiVqPaH7ntr9yTmluIMnqJcciqjE8lLlMOhSGW+jlRa4JyVlA8roJWWg== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cd04:: with SMTP id f4mr3167494wmj.91.1573137244413; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 06:34:04 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.149] ([109.110.245.170]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id x8sm1963785wmi.10.2019.11.07.06.34.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 06:34:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87zhh82d8c.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4864:20::332 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:241924 Archived-At: On 07.11.2019 12:27, João Távora wrote: >> I recognize others feel differently, though. > > It seems to be more than "feeling". Have you asked yourself why the > whole industry seems to does it differently (i.e. with bold or some > other contrasting color)? I'm assuming that's rhetorical. But I have also pointed out how we differ from "the whole industry" in other respects, for good or bad. But there are two questions here: do we highlight common-part by default at all, and which color to use. > I think it's because not all people have your > spectacular eyesight and not all of them have such great monitors (or > use them at a more conservative power setting). I'm always using mine at 50% brightness at most. But never mind. >> then I would really suggest we use it instead. But if it's not legible >> for you, e.g. my monitor is unusually high-contrast or whatever, oh >> well. > > If the proposal is blue4 than my votes changes to "against". The > reasoning is that it is counter-productive. I imagine a new user > enabling, say, M-x fido-mode in Emacs 27, and asking himself "If they > were going to choose face for this, why choose this > near-indistinguishable, vision-straining thing?". The idea is that one would really need to find out why a given string is among the matches very rarely. Maybe once of twice, and they'll simply trust the completion engine after that. And for a one-off task, one might as well squint a little. If the common scenario is different, and we expect that the user will look at common-part every time, to figure out what to type next, maybe we should discuss why the first-difference face is not enough for that. > There's no space > there to answer "oh, you see, some people didn't like highlighting at > all, mostly in other matching styles you're not going to use, so we > chose this crappy middle-of-road compromise. Also we don't care much > for your old-man's eyesight." Vice versa, one might ask why we added this in-your-face highlighting why simply looks like a solid blue (or aquamarine) column in the Completions buffer. And we'll have to answer that, well, there exists a recently added non-default completion style where this highlighting is really useful. > João > > PS: If only there was a way to make flex use another highlighting... BTW, speaking of backward compatibility, some of the changes in face placement you proposed would break company-capf's implementation of the 'match' action.