From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Mendler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] (icomplete-vertical-mode): Add support for affixations and, annotations Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 05:14:51 +0200 Message-ID: <63683aaa-3d72-31cb-9c86-9917b12d1356@daniel-mendler.de> References: <87zgwlb4xc.fsf@gmail.com> <617d06ca-27bf-2ae8-26eb-1042123499d3@daniel-mendler.de> <87pmxhb1rs.fsf@gmail.com> <23510125-37b9-e87e-3590-5322f44772ce@daniel-mendler.de> <87a6olazff.fsf@gmail.com> <93d2cfe9-bae8-bf94-486f-7569aa31491d@daniel-mendler.de> <874kesj6k6.fsf@gmail.com> <87zgwkhrmi.fsf@gmail.com> <83f4eb63-3299-bfe7-77f9-0fc19403b966@daniel-mendler.de> <875yz7ivik.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6431"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Juri Linkov , dgutov@yandex.ru, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue May 25 05:15:50 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1llNXq-0001Ty-5m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 May 2021 05:15:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50876 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1llNXp-0001Zm-1u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 23:15:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52522) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1llNWy-0000rW-Ia for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 23:14:56 -0400 Original-Received: from server.qxqx.de ([2a01:4f8:121:346::180]:39041 helo=mail.qxqx.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1llNWw-0008Kx-U6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 23:14:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qxqx.de; s=mail1392553390; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=j5TfnUzXLzYEdfK2pTZsWAqedRH7RnYuiJ04AYRS+W4=; b=JIBuXnMlJqkw2R65nmfIIaPOwj plJPj5Cdb8F1atuWPIf9Zj1BzchwIpCpLEyHjJDGUEI83FCU4uo7/rgyetitxCAxIth9B69i5cvdB QLnA9OludWpI61AU1IehDKEyDKKTT+j/2ZvPpwlkU5VD7TjEfScdy0wzEZd6rJlgE8x8=; In-Reply-To: <875yz7ivik.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a01:4f8:121:346::180; envelope-from=mail@daniel-mendler.de; helo=mail.qxqx.de X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:269832 Archived-At: On 5/25/21 1:04 AM, João Távora wrote: >> I don't think it is a good idea to end up with the >> `affixation-function` in addition the enhanced `annotation-function` >> with its prefix/suffix annotations. If we go with the enhanced >> `annotation-function` the `affixation-function` should be removed. > > I tend to agree, but there's also no harm in keeping both. That's what > happens right now. Okay, but I hope in the final design the `affixation-function` is gone now or we can agree on a reworked `affixation-function` as a successor which aims to replace the `annotation-function`. But ending up with an augmented `annotation-function` and the new `affixation-function` is quite obviously chaos. This should be avoided. Of course it is fine if Juri continues to rework the `affixation-function` he introduced and you rework the `annotation-function` to your liking. But in the end there should be some agreement which proposal to take! Stefan and Dmitry, your thoughts about this? Daniel