From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question about completion behavior Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 15:10:57 +0200 Message-ID: <83v8wne0f2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20220309001013.gxyh2uasbuxiz6ww.ref@Ergus> <20220309001013.gxyh2uasbuxiz6ww@Ergus> <20220309014619.bptamkv47xdiyhzp@Ergus> <831qzbg5j2.fsf@gnu.org> <20220309101159.4k3uma2ztvldlqiz@Ergus> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15025"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ergus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 14:12:16 2022 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 1nRw6x-0003jx-O2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 14:12:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52508 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRw6w-0005Z4-FQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 08:12:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41092) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRw5n-00044n-NJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 08:11:03 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=35150 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRw5m-0001ba-M0; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 08:11:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=RIG/3KLoOGPqHMj/C1qorLnPOUevwe+9G28I+3U9j+s=; b=ofB5OUrp/Tlp 3QBl0VLH4D6C2pZ2JXRK74FfdFbFeLsxgD3AKEJEDd7tqNXzS3x//i+bpd2NHgdaaMzo6k2SW9ieb 0bdlMva0s68YSi/69hcAaR7PIofnYTEIetyWKbJdptQq/nnw8qHhWujGYUkx0SWV/G5iurr2PVMk8 0Ojch1wNBje/O8otkh9VIxBcnb1Qz9SJ3CD+P1ii+18t0CypO1ApfMpWGIg9XvJJcuGuR/t/pTEk9 OCoRAx5K1LtG6+P6dlSaNa8jE6MPtPU6dxom0Y4D/r+NA4gd91s7fm+95T1TtIincauFa3V0ImGPz dJVH7MGQdhyjlg8M6Kt2EA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3745 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRw5m-0001PT-46; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 08:11:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20220309101159.4k3uma2ztvldlqiz@Ergus> (message from Ergus on Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:11:59 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:286950 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:11:59 +0100 > From: Ergus > Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > What I propose is: > > 1. no unique (shows or update completions) > 2. unique common (complete-common and UPDATE completions) > 3. unique candidate (complete and hides completion) > 4. unique common but completion is a valid entry (complete-common and hides completion) > > Is this behavior fine?? Sorry, I don't think I understand what you mean by each of the descriptions "unique common", "unique candidate", etc. And I don't want to guess wrongly. So I cannot answer your question; please describe each situation as accurately as you can, to make the discussion effective and useful. Thanks.