From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Herbert Euler" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Comint Completion Broken Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:03:12 +0800 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1148022232 8904 80.91.229.2 (19 May 2006 07:03:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 07:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: romain@orebokech.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 19 09:03:46 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fgz1N-0000hD-NP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 09:03:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fgz1N-0007Hm-46 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 03:03:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fgz1A-0007HX-0q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 03:03:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fgz16-0007FO-8r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 03:03:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fgz16-0007FA-5N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 03:03:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [64.4.26.43] (helo=hotmail.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fgz4L-0005s6-0t; Fri, 19 May 2006 03:06:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 19 May 2006 00:03:17 -0700 Original-Received: from 64.4.26.200 by by112fd.bay112.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2006 07:03:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.145.54.158] X-Originating-Email: [herberteuler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: herberteuler@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: Original-To: miles@gnu.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2006 07:03:17.0226 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DD7E4A0:01C67B12] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:54768 Archived-At: >From: Miles Bader >Reply-To: Miles Bader >To: Romain Francoise >CC: Herbert Euler , emacs-devel@gnu.org >Subject: Re: Comint Completion Broken >Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:18:17 +0900 > >Romain Francoise writes: > >> Typing a SPC deletes the completion window, typing anything else > >> leaves the completion window in place. [This seems like reasonable > >> behavior -- fairly often I _want_ to leave the window in place, so I > >> can select it and do more advanced searching or whatever.] > > > > The window used to get deleted automatically on key events, e.g. > > > > u p TAB (window appears) t (window disappears) TAB > > => uptime > > > > But that was apparently an accidental feature, and it caused a bug when > > selecting completion candidates with mouse-1 in the window: > >My memory is a bit fuzzy, but as I recall, the "really old" behavior >(what was in Emacs 21) was more or less the same the current behavior. > >I'm not entirely sure of the whole ugly history after that, but for a >while, I think pcomplete was used for comint completion, which had the >"window always gets deleted" behavior. [but I can't find any record of >this in the ChangeLog, so maybe it's just an illusion I had???] > >Whether or not it's due to pcomplete, until fairly recently comint >seemed to be doing the "window always gets deleted" thing, which was >extremely annoying; I'm assuming that's what Nick fixed. > >Anyway, the current behavior seems both user-friendly and compatible >with Emacs 21. So I'd say things are in a good state. Well, in my opinion, deleting completion window automatically is more user-friend. Perhaps one wants completion always at hand, but if one has already finished inputing (indicated by inserting a unique string in completion window or typing SPC), the completion window should be deleted automatically. Otherwise, one have to type C-x 1 to delete the completion window manually, which is a bit boring. And the most user-friend method seems to be, the completion window gets updated and finally deleted as user inputing. Regards, Guanpeng Xu _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/