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: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:39:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87k0p867qc.fsf@posteo.net> 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> <83zgy43gr7.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8698"; 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, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 11 19:43:15 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 1lVe79-0002BZ-Mx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:43:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43982 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVe78-0005hc-Og for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:43:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVe3s-0004kI-PX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:39:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:57867) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVe3j-0001K7-EK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:39:49 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 449AB2400FD for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:39:41 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1618162781; bh=41fPnbFXGZ7LHEcmCdmUF1DSPoEq3vd1p0WCjx7xjRE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=BrRa3VHvfpb8eeeTY8k2DBg07j5bU8HRDKSjW6Sc0wXEqHob0M71dDhX5kSvUeTSO k1jcd8pmaNYxip2+kds+7Np+YXaC28KFYBK6FfxD0zgrbavnT32y64L+r9oeyQUaMW Gm1809uDge66OvrxjCNYNUj0rDkbWTGlcf7X9G6zEwr4ts+E4PNehEgGglGm6qrE1c 91Ve3XncWU68wiFvhw8yoOs5M4X1sOxVkPcRlVRHv19A/HC3/UNI1RoCwKQEFFBSdN 23hQeq4CMgsvifiOtHKk4xK4zcdIAx011POnjPFmLGPGD1c5Gfo4eJ/DPde5fJu2r+ Cz1BzQ120Y8eA== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FJJz04VHBz9rxB; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:39:40 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83zgy43gr7.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:53:00 +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=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable 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:267907 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> 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". completing-read has it's existing interface, and let's say that selecting-read would not try to copy this interface 1:1. Instead a third function could attempt to "translate" completing-read calls into selecting-read calls, reducing the complexity of selecting-read. I hope I'm not the only one, but writing "nil nil nil nil" just to access a specific argument is cumbersome, and harder to extend. If it is possible to keep a new interface cleaner, I think that this would help it be more forwards-compatible. -- Philip K.