From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Stepping Back: A Wealth Of Completion systems Re: [ELPA] New package: vertico Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 16:55:34 +0200 Message-ID: <87blaqw3dl.fsf@posteo.net> References: <9c9af088-580f-9fb1-4d79-237a74ce605c@inventati.org> <874kgkxxs0.fsf@posteo.net> <78741fe6-2612-d7c9-2bc4-0b68ea7fa51a@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8751"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: Manuel Uberti , "T.V Raman" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 07 16:56:47 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 1lU9br-0002A7-4V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 16:56:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37970 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lU9bq-0008L6-60 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 10:56:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50554) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lU9aq-0007Vc-6a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 10:55:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:49125) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lU9am-0002Hd-US for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 10:55:43 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 093CE2400FC for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:55:37 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1617807338; bh=kRI0NxkSCh/rXPeSJWu6pHFfeouUBrJ4aSQCdoSxr8Y=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=Kk0JJbZMcL5cjwy9PJXSGcu78hnjrAEXKVq6WQ1BTLVGtnh0PgrV8tYlK9/++Cekb U41oqHxMfznHtuQ/sIDH1/i4A5jSNGUl/2DVcVFfahtfQ16oGtoEXgdW52B+yU9owg cAdtSkXntBYb02ON8NCJj+8oxuV3OE25uMT+e5K+flKuS2W/C0oGZremPETqkGV9xC jnbRlXSJR15X1aj6j7rctbaKXtKat14+npG5HY4JtQw/1qJjKaKrgtlQd/2i7rFz+X CmsLOCZCY7MX/VmH/ADw1In5I/moWLe8PkfaJ7FX93QyTtpGgy+JtXbt7N2s45I8xx QGWMzHtxkCeSA== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FFnWX3GdWz6tmQ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:55:36 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Wed, 07 Apr 2021 10:44:11 -0400") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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:267524 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> Most completion frameworks I have looked at seem to limit themselves to >>> the latter. To simplify, they collect all the options of a collection >>> using all-completions and then narrow it depending on user input. Ido >>> and all it's descendents (Ivy, Helm, Selectrum and now vertico) seem to >>> be based on that approach. >> I don't think that's true. > > I don't think the frequency of refreshing the list of candidates is what > he was referring to, but rather the support for "TAB completion" which > corresponds to the `(completion-)try-completion` operation which is > expected to extract the commonality between the various candidates. Just to confirm the point, yes, this was what I was referring to. -- Philip K.