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 18:14:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87o8ek6bp1.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32132"; 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 18:14:54 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 1lVcje-0008GX-DO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:14:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56548 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVcjd-0006mk-Cx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:14:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59216) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVcix-0006Es-I5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:14:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:34843) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVcit-0006hm-Ii for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:14:10 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32AFF2400FE for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:14:05 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1618157645; bh=8TZcr3hLszSXuLyWNi4kSgMmKFx4KTH4A7txt1BmFPY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=hMZtcxFKdLV9cWpz9ntwygyvofTW+G6AYL7ss2xqT8P59gyn8bBfr6tG+mqKaSARj 1EumbfezJGit4xvHHrazfX3E+L9NeJH6jDmc57SZ29lFUXy2xO77fnbTmHtgJg0rMh 7SIZ8a0n5JjP3ZbGAvxwsyzWg82Hey32uclo4E77fgiB4C0J6Z+JOFU8seFCF0DCFh ASSsKDNSGSEKlMi89ovyVzW1SGd7IMpSRX38o1j5cVjq+ZCCid6Bu+zDJdAjyREFS+ zH4j7L/OfSXGErJPMApYZUvZlLO4Q3mE6Ze02AH8L2CcjVx0A2bpqLfhtuyO9eSOYB 3ihqkFGblBq1Q== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FJH4D4nKXz9rxT; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 18:14:04 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83a6q53pxh.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:34:50 +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=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:267897 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:18:47 +0200 >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> 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? -- Philip K.