Re: completing-read return meta-information?

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 09/22/2015 06:21 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:

>> PS: Also, as a user, I think I'd rather see names like "dir/file" than
>> "file<dir>".
>
> You only need directory names when there are conflicting names; on many
> paths, there will be none or few.

I think the key distinction here is between "need to input" and "need to 
see". As long as the user doesn't need to input the directory, I think 
it's fine if they end up seeing it at some point.

> I mainly used that style because it meant the user string is a prefix of
> all the completions, which some of the completion primitives expect, so
> it made things simpler.

This sounds like it'll filter out all results if the user *does* input 
the directory, in all or at least some of the cases.

Please think back to the examples I gave in the other thread.

> On the other hand, I use the postfix uniquify style for buffer names, so
> I'm used to it :).
>
> I'll try to implement directory completion in both styles; this should
> be a user preference, just as it is in buffer names.

Having it customizable would be ideal, but I'm not sure it's possible to 
have uniquify-style completions without excluding some valid usage 
scenarios, like mentioned above.