Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> writes:

> I did not say it's "less modular", I said it is "not modular enough".

OK, so at least we agree it's an improvement.  And I also agree it's not
modular enough, but mostly in the sense that nothing is ever is.

>> Who do you think doesn't want to see those numbers?  You personally?
> I do not want to see these numbers indeed, and again I'd be surprised
> if I were the only one.  IMO displaying that information wastes CPU
> cycles for no good reason.

OK.  Then patches welcome I guess.  Do you have any indication of how
many CPU cycles to do that measuring in comparison to the number spent
without them?

>> A hook is a variable, and considerably more complex than a
>> boolean. Why is that better here and how would it solve the problem?
> It is better because other users can define other functions in their
> init files and use them instead of the default ones.

What other functions?  What is the protocol for this hook you are
proposing?

>>> frame-height = 47, 10 candidates are displayed, yet the candidates
>>> list rotates on the 7th candidate (instead of the 11th one).
>> This is by design.  Works like Vertico and many other completers.
> We can and should do better than other completers.

But what's wrong with this approach?  How is it bad and how could it be
better?

>> I also can't reproduce these two cases, not with Emacs -Q.  Maybe
>> you're using some extra configuration?  What?
> No, I'm using emacs -Q (on Debian GNU/Linux with GTK in case it
> matters).

I need a recipe so I can understasnd what you're doing and ensure
neither of us is seeing poltergeist.  Here's what I'm doing:

  emacs -Q -g 120x47 -f fido-mode -f fido-vertical-mode
  Type C-x C-f
  Scroll down a bit

I attach a gif.