RE: on helm substantial differences

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

> >> Like there are already possible choices 'horizontal' and 'vertical'
> >> in the user option 'completions-format', it could also support
> >> a new choice like 'rich'.
> >
> > `rich' is a poor choice, IMO - it doesn't mean much.
> 
> This is a reference to the package ivy-rich

Is it?  What says that?

The name itself doesn't say that.  If that's important
then call it `ivy-rich', not `rich'.  But that just
punts, no?  Then someone needs to find that package
and see what it says "rich" means here.

Just because some other package uses a vague name like
that, does that mean Emacs shouldn't do better?

Might as well call it `enhanced', `special', `super',
or `wonderful'.  Does "rich" have a meaning that
suggests something here other than "full" or "great"?

> Ivy supports a richer format of completions,

Which means what, exactly?  Doesn't mean anything to
me, except to suggest that it uses a different format
that's somehow better than the other formats (how so?).

> and there no reason not to do something similar
> in the default completion framework.

I'd suggest the opposite: there's no reason to be as
unclear in the default framework.

If you call it `ivy-rich' then OK.  Someone can
search for what that might really mean.

Just one opinion.  Doesn't really matter to me what
you call it.