From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: select yank via completion Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:54:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9ecf9268-6d24-4eeb-a567-0535a427c8c1@default> References: <87wnymda5g.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87ima5he8j.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87mtzfzt9a.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87k0uifp3w.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87d009iykt.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <3341c426-3a86-4ef0-a0ca-9102191a925b@default> <87o8jsiems.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36535"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: spacibba@aol.com, Jean Louis , andreyk.mad@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at, Gregory Heytings , Eli Zaretskii To: Stefan Monnier , Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 21 22:55:56 2020 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 1kgarL-0009Pm-Hj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 22:55:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43636 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kgarK-0000x5-Fm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 16:55:54 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57126) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kgaqX-0000PR-HA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 16:55:05 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:60100) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kgaqV-0000Qu-LT; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 16:55:05 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0ALLstda167362; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 21:54:55 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=mow+Ub7YIjRRrXfX6azSz8PpiOfTNyrXMp/t8R5Wrd0=; b=f5iC5YKo0o+XdoSEs0mT4AvCYNHRKhB7avvxCJODVWfR+ScpCaGZhtDdLmond93drDZL W6gGlDjpSBbOEEr1/8S3XK+QyZBRj0P2EywMhA5UjL16EO2QDayRqd4zYOnIsEDhV1pG JoiftpVxflDPPrm8naBUD5iqk8rtBVJteBgDOvOVsMd7EhZKllS3FiL/vj6CTznN42tS hyVeOwB4h29ze1UDE9L6GMzHodq/F2n43TZty5FdY/RWRM5Ux6jRNOtZmGUqmk+tZVoL xgNlvzdOFbhbsfTk/bVr0Vmvyf50+ephSHZoFjhAJrYS2NVCQFSGOUnu/BxeQICmYRLX JA== Original-Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 34xrdahfb1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 21 Nov 2020 21:54:55 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0ALLnhLG138066; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 21:54:54 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 34xt7hsre3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 21 Nov 2020 21:54:54 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0ALLsqpk021993; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 21:54:52 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5071.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9812 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=827 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2011210153 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9812 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=852 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2011210153 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.146.126.79; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=aserp2130.oracle.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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:259550 Archived-At: (Going through unread mails chronologically...) > > So now a new patch let-binds (minibuffer-completing-file-name t) > > around completing-read to allow inserting SPC, problem solved: >=20 > Please don't, since we're not actually completing file names. Indeed. > I agree with Drew that we should probably just get rid of the SPC > binding in minibuffer completions,=20 So let's finally do it - now. > but until we do that you'll need... Ugh. Why on earth would we consider this particular thing (yanking) to be a one-off? Let's just give SPC first-class citizenship finally - let it self-insert. What's the big deal? Why go round and round Robinson's Barn to avoid and work around a silly, obsolete design decision from the Dark Ages? Is there even one good reason (good meaning beyond just habit/inertia) why completion - *in general* - should not let SPC (and `?', for that matter) self-insert? If ever it's inappropriate, for some specific use of `completing-read', to let SPC self-insert, THEN we use your hoop to jump through. (Word-completion is the only use case I know of.)