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: Stepping Back: A Wealth Of Completion systems Re: [ELPA] New package: vertico Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:53:00 +0300 Message-ID: <83zgy43gr7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <9c9af088-580f-9fb1-4d79-237a74ce605c@inventati.org> <874kgkxxs0.fsf@posteo.net> <87blamp5hy.fsf@posteo.net> <2ce73f33-8675-211a-9eb7-ea63de1a161e@yandex.ru> <871rbh6pd4.fsf@posteo.net> <83a6q53pxh.fsf@gnu.org> <87o8ek6bp1.fsf@posteo.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2239"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 11 18:54:13 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 1lVdLh-0000Rd-CA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:54:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51322 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVdLg-0002GQ-E0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:54:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36872) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVdKo-0001rm-P2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36159) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVdKo-0006kE-7a; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3357 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lVdKn-0006YX-4z; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:53:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o8ek6bp1.fsf@posteo.net> (message from Philip Kaludercic on Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:14:02 +0200) 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:267903 Archived-At: > From: Philip Kaludercic > Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:14:02 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> But this raises a more general question, of whether selecting-read and > >> completing-read should be drop-in replacements of one another. > > > > I think they should strive to, because it's conceivable that we will > > have a user option to determine which one to call where currently we > > call completing-read. > > But why should that mean that both interfaces should be identical? It > seems cleaner to instead have a sr->cr translation layer, as to prevent > unnecessary dependencies between the two interfaces? I don't understand what you mean by "translation layer". What I have in mind is a user option that tells completing-read to invoke the "selection kind" of UI. It follows that being able to use the same arguments and data structures would be a boon for allowing that. And note that I said "should strive to", not "should be". If there are good reasons why they cannot have the same or similar enough signatures, it's not a catastrophe. But we should have a good reason, IMO.