Re: [PATCH] completions-max-height

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 08:47:13AM +0000, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
>Ergus <spacibba@aol.com> writes:
>
>> I understand your intention, but in practice making this more complex
>> is useless. The mini buffer is always down and making the completions
>> to move somewhere else is uncomfortable and may require more
>> lisp/emacs knowledge to change the default behavior from the
>> user. Which is completely the opposite to my intention. Actually this
>> same result may be reached with an advise as I discussed on yesterday
>> on emacs help. But a simple custom is better.
>>
>> I am totally fine if you propose something else more general if that don't forces the user to write a function to change a simple height.
>
>What I proposed would just require something like
>
>    (setq completion-display-buffer-option '(display-buffer-at-bottom (window-height . 10)))
>
I got the point but if you look at the original code there are
conditions that will need to be set to not change the current default
behavior (because that always ends in arguments from long time users
that want some specific detail of the previous behavior), for example:
temp-buffer-resize-mode or (eq (selected-window) (minibuffer-window)).

We can go around them, but it may be a more complex patch I am not
willing to do because I don't see the utility of a completions window in
any other place than where it goes now (next to the minibuffer).

In a best case the new variable will need to be something like:
`completion-display-from-minibuffer-options` and parse them with some
if-else here and there to apply the position only when (eq
(selected-window) (minibuffer-window)) but provide a default value in
case the user didn't specify it and the height only when not
temp-buffer-resize-mode (or condition it as the new function does).



>> On March 8, 2022 6:13:13 AM GMT+01:00, Protesilaos Stavrou <info@protesilaos.com> wrote:
>>>On 2022-03-07, 22:10 +0000, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ergus <spacibba@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that this may be added to vanilla?
>>>>
>>>> IMO it would be better if this could be generalised to something like
>>>> completion-display-buffer-action, so that you can decide where and how
>>>> the completion buffer is displayed.  Though I am uncertain if this might
>>>> have unintended side effects, as the behaviour seems to have been
>>>> hard-coded for a while.
>>>
>>>I agree with Philip.  Or go a step further and just let the Completions
>>>behave like other buffers so the user can contol its placement and
>>>parameters via the display-buffer-alist.
>
>You can do so now too, but I don't think that that would be an argument
>to just have the completion buffer behave like other buffers,
>considering that there are certainly many who are used to its current
>behaviour.
>
>>>--
>>>Protesilaos Stavrou
>>>https://protesilaos.com
>>>
>
>-- 
>	Philip Kaludercic
>