From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle case where `beg` and `end` are strings instead of markers Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:29:21 +0300 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <86zgk3u7bi.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: <87k0b84tfr.fsf@occasionallycogent.com> <87h76c4ruf.fsf@occasionallycogent.com> <86sfpwwerz.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87czh03xa9.fsf@occasionallycogent.com> <87zgk42day.fsf@occasionallycogent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="12773"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: "James N. V. Cash" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 29 19:32:05 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 1nkUTN-00035A-00 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:32:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55236 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nkUTL-0007S6-Lb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:32:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42820) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nkURs-0006at-7z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:30:32 -0400 Original-Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:44497) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nkURq-00010D-9j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:30:31 -0400 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC6A360009; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:30:26 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:18:18 -0400") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.70.183.195; envelope-from=juri@linkov.net; helo=relay3-d.mail.gandi.net X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:289014 Archived-At: > I think rather than (minibuffer--completion-prompt-end) and (point-max), > we should be using "the beginning of the completion area" and "the end > of the completion area". In a typical minibuffer completion, that's > exactly the same, but in `completing-read-multiple` or > `complete-in-region` the difference can be significant. Is this what bug#48356 is intended to improve?