From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Add some aliases for re-related functions Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 20:46:56 +0300 Message-ID: <83r1vzmw33.fsf@gnu.org> References: <7976B8C1-AFC7-4662-B750-6492EB70C0D5@gmail.com> <20200502192908.GD6832@ACM> <835zddqf1j.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7wvoju7.fsf@gnu.org> <12b122f0-9ef9-97ff-7350-0f9414aece2c@yandex.ru> <83tv0vmwmh.fsf@gnu.org> <4c52f5e5-380e-76bc-c9fe-6bb10c4fec1f@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="29130"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 04 19:47:45 2020 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 1jVfBx-0007TY-5V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 19:47:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47362 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVfBw-000510-6j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 13:47:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59978) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVfBP-0004Zn-3N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 13:47:11 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36513) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVfBO-0002ws-HJ; Mon, 04 May 2020 13:47:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1303 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jVfBE-0000Ve-S5; Mon, 04 May 2020 13:47:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4c52f5e5-380e-76bc-c9fe-6bb10c4fec1f@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Mon, 4 May 2020 20:42:03 +0300) 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:248886 Archived-At: > Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 20:42:03 +0300 > > On 04.05.2020 20:35, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Cc:emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 20:12:40 +0300 > >> > >> On 04.05.2020 17:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>> I think it would be better to do it the other way around: make "C-h f" > >>> look at the arguments and the first line of the doc string (and > >>> similarly with "C-h v") > >> Unusual behavior aside, I don't think our general completion logic will > >> work well when input has little correlation to the completion results > >> (function names). > > I don't understand the response: what I wrote had no relation to > > completion whatsoever. Maybe you responded to the wrong message? > > Not at all. > > 'C-h f' uses completing-read to help the user input the function they'll > see the description for. Yes, but that's entirely unrelated to Richard's question and to my response. They had to do with what these command search, not how they invoke completion of their arguments. Hmm... I think I see the confusion: I said "C-h f", but had "C-h a" in mind. Sorry.