Re: Stepping Back: A Wealth Of Completion systems Re: [ELPA] New package: vertico

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 11.04.2021 16:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> I don't think the distinction matters here.  We are discussing if
>>> candidates should be shown eagerly, and my answer is "yes".
>> Are you using an alternative completion framework? I find it interesting
>> how some people agree with the distinction and others don't, and wonder
>> if the way they use Emacs shapes their opinion.
> My theory is that some people prefer the selection-type of completion,
> and others (like me) don't.  I don't see a reason to try to settle the
> difference, it's a matter of personal preferences and past experience.

I agree we should be able to keep both kinds of completion and let the 
users choose they generally prefer, that's why I made emphasis on which 
usages really *can't* employ the wrong kind of completion (and thus 
would generally follow the programmer's hint and not the user 
customization).

I do think it's unfortunate you're adamant about using only one of these 
approaches, because we're missing out on valuable feedback and 
recommendations this way (and maybe some strategic support), but it's 
not a blocker of any kind, for this or related issues.

When I think back, though, and recall that you also agreed that more 
"IDE features" are important to have in Emacs, I believe that at some 
point in the future, as we're making progress on that path, some 
defaults will need to change, because AFAIK the vast majority of current 
"IDE" users are used to the selection-type completion, and so one is 
pretty strongly associated with the other. Again, not necessarily, but 
it would make sense.