Re: [PATCH] Re: Other details about completion.

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:39:16AM +0300, Juri Linkov wrote:
>>> Do you mean addition step is needed where first C-g/ESC will clear
>>> the suffix, then another C-g/ESC will exit the minibuffer?
>>
>> We need a simple handy way to restore the mini-buffer as it was before
>> the navigation attempt...
>>
>> Maybe, let's look more at zsh and similes... That's already tested to
>> be intuitive so we don't need to reinvent the wheel and their users
>> already know.
>
>C-g in the completions buffer closes the completions window,
>then the second C-g in the minibuffer exits the minibuffer.
>
>So C-g in the minibuffer could be two-step as well:
>first C-g closes the completions window and clears the suffix,
>second C-g exits the minibuffer.
>
The most I go into this the most convinced I get that
completion-auto-select and selecting the Completions windows is the
simplest and cleaner way to go.

>>>> 2) In tabular navigation the down arrow always goes to the first column
>>>> which is wrong; maybe it should use next-line or line-move instead of
>>>> forward-line?
>>>
>>> This is what I tried first, but byte-compiler complained next-line
>>> is only for interactive use.
>>
>> Then it should probably be line-move but forward-line goes to column zero.
>
>Neither of them wraps to the beginning like next-completion does.

The wrap behavior is only set for tab and backtab commands (yes, it is
hardcoded there... don't blame me) not even for all next-completion
uses. I prefer not to touch that code anymore or add more stuff
there... At some point we will decide to fix/replace the mouse-face
approach there and all this will be a nightmare to support the legacy
behavior. 

>This means we need a new command next-completion-vertical.

I already tried that in the first version of zcomplete I did long time
ago. And you said (and I agreed) that it was too complicated.