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: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 16:44:34 +0200 Message-ID: <87im4wx2ct.fsf@posteo.net> References: <9c9af088-580f-9fb1-4d79-237a74ce605c@inventati.org> <874kgkxxs0.fsf@posteo.net> <78741fe6-2612-d7c9-2bc4-0b68ea7fa51a@yandex.ru> <76a4d0e2-117b-165d-d56e-5bc2f504b50c@yandex.ru> <87blapln0r.fsf@posteo.net> <37bd2e96-ce04-eb6d-24da-fdd7ea427e61@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="13104"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 08 16:46:21 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 1lUVvJ-0003CZ-OP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 16:46:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39138 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUVvI-0004pK-Ks for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 10:46:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49270) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUVtm-00049E-0S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 10:44:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:33451) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUVtj-0003SU-DU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 10:44:45 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC2EC2400FF for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:44:37 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1617893078; bh=4JhNvzmXbYZe4Y20InQr/CxOUncpU5Y7LsrTTis3xso=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=nBRR3Z0J/G5anegp6cdN2qUHX9VTHYI3YL7wAZzr7FZNcMWLIXCW78iD1JkrxCDmN Qwj/euDhNnUvB6bi/5xEGTliq0l3E05gakrIchjZOG3IvO6SmAPJ4E4FRLqCyawrM0 VCc0nyaiG3lsc0TJ+vcxT7JcBRV6Xd3UsDd2uTOImyM57Hcbk/Iktrh1rcUAa8YKib Z/g+CW5WoB8mznGAMVeta1/HxmkKqIsqX0iNJ+hAdOEh2JVoSHTfVamFePRJaTRJB+ oUgNjscxTe9wtXJxk+T9n1p+aycjM7PTQGuOMkjPDclsVIT5YVPdNt8s7HK+7u0o2i rKSwCVTZCZ/5w== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FGPDN6TXSz9rxM; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:44:36 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <37bd2e96-ce04-eb6d-24da-fdd7ea427e61@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Thu, 8 Apr 2021 03:48:57 +0300") 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:267615 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov writes: > On 08.04.2021 01:59, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >> Dmitry Gutov writes: >> >>> What I was disagreeing in the previous message, is whether it's worth >>> to create a semantic distinction between completing-read and >>> selecting-read. How would a Lisp author choose between the two? The >>> former should actually be more powerful (it will retain support for >>> TAB completion, and yet it could still be supported by selection-style >>> frameworks such as Company or Ivy); >> completing-read can be more powerful, as it includes expanding text >> and >> selecting items, but I if you are not interested in text-expansion you >> should probably limit yourself to selection, > > Am "I" in this example the user, or the author of the caller code? The I was probably a typo. >> so that everyone is ensured >> to have the same presentation. > > If that's the goal, why don't we make sure to include a "selection" > interface that supports text-expansion as well, like both Company and > Ivy do? > > What's the purpose of having that distinction? My hypothisis is that selection is held back by completing-read, and that a framework that is explicitly made for selection and not retrofitted into the existing framework could stand to improve the user experience. -- Philip K.