From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: C-x C-f, Tab (in)completion and visiting the wrong, new files Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:12:54 -0700 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1186949692 8534 80.91.229.12 (12 Aug 2007 20:14:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs- devel To: "Stefan Monnier" , "David Reitter" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 12 22:14:50 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IKJpp-0006sx-6B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:14:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IKJpo-0001PJ-Lt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:14:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IKJpl-0001Na-Dx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:14:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IKJpj-0001Jy-Gf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:14:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IKJpj-0001Jm-CY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:14:43 -0400 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IKJpj-0001bR-2q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:14:43 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (rgmgw2.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.111]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l7CKEd1n015660; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:14:39 -0500 Original-Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150]) by rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id l7CJDxJC012191; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:14:38 -0600 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-csvpn-gw2-141-144-72-211.vpn.oracle.com by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3116162521186949588; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:13:08 -0700 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:76392 Archived-At: > >>> But if the same happens to others as well, perhaps a more general > >>> change could make Emacs more convenient in this respect. > >> find-file-confirm-nonexistent-file > > Could be done, but I don't think adding another confirmation > step for new > > files (that are intended to be created) is as good as making the right > > guess when the user uses completion and confirms an incomplete > > (i.e. ambiguous) choice. > > That's very interesting: I added the find-file-confirm-nonexistent-file > pretty for the exact reason you describe, and what you propose is > a refinement of it: to only do the "confirm" step if the previous command > was a completion command. That makes a lot of sense: it may even > be enabled > by default without provoking angry reactions, contrary to > find-file-confirm-nonexistent-file. It could just be confirgured > with a new > value `only-after-completion' for find-file-confirm-nonexistent-file. > > > This case may even be universal to all completion-based > minibuffer inputs. > > Could be. This proposal is essentially to require confirmation for lax completion. With the `only-after-completion' value, confirmation would be required only after TAB; any other non-nil value would always require confirmation for input that doesn't match completely. Is that correct? I have no objection to such an option to control the behavior, but I don't think the default behavior should be changed.