From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Yates Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs completion matches selection UI Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:59:18 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87fvqtg02v.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <877gc5fm30.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <8738msfqo5.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <20131120001047.GE23860@boo.workgroup> <87hab7euef.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04451a7f40e43d04eb9f8a18 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1384970365 19779 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2013 17:59:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:59:25 +0000 (UTC) To: Emacs developers Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 20 18:59:29 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VjC3j-0000nN-BF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:59:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56243 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjC3j-0006Fg-0g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:59:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41687) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjC3e-0006FG-QP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:59:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjC3c-0007Yb-Kt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:59:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]:54458) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjC3c-0007YO-80 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:59:20 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k14so9580382wgh.29 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:59:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=KAVguHAnEB0iGR2k1drgQh1iRiRftbwLRfqSEPCdqEU=; b=kE9qiGnj9hqUOOYbq+7+8S4joEJAfjmFAsOgCNZWRhVBfBq5jzJu1GpmMsAGOx9D0G kSIGTNrJeMAanc/OC61HpiVEFrvEDSTYYihYTHH1Dg+y/0EnBfEn5rNoMA/Mr3f2mhF/ BSwN3WlnTkpjpolEOKhf3ZLbIDFG8TBKZErj/7j3ccub+UjWY1YxGYLiXCWONA+RupyQ 7ZU7EbK4XojDx2UQkHqLJqNR0UgBu78fTOKzRlHED6sD1Hdm1E3iR4iw/0OkgB6mmQbp rdlQMQv46XXOAsP0xqudQkwIfn4FMRQ0bic3GYUccmnI+0b1crPU431zCvWdrvovLGOI yFmw== X-Received: by 10.180.98.229 with SMTP id el5mr2354368wib.29.1384970358676; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:59:18 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.194.201.195 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:59:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87hab7euef.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: faxFoYzJimxP7BM4G3MJRLtDxNQ X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c00::232 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:165442 Archived-At: --f46d04451a7f40e43d04eb9f8a18 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Ted Zlatanov wrote: > I'm not against buffers but against the general UI flow, which requires > either mouse clicks or hitting `C-x o'. > For me the crucial difference between mini-buffer completion and pop is that one does not alter the layout of my windows while the other does. Have a helpful list of suggestions to the right while my cursor remains undisturbed is very intuitive. By contrast having a new window pop up moves _my_ focus but fails to move emacs' focus. I would be very happy if, having configured emacs to pop a completion buffer emacs' focus moved there immediately. /john --f46d04451a7f40e43d04eb9f8a18 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> = wrote:
I= 'm not against=A0buffers but against the general UI flow, which require= s either mouse=A0clicks or hitting `C-x o'.

For me the crucial difference between mini= -buffer completion and pop is that one does not alter the layout of my wind= ows while the other does. =A0Have a helpful list of suggestions to the righ= t while my cursor remains undisturbed is very intuitive. =A0By contrast hav= ing a new window pop up moves _my_ focus but fails to move emacs' focus= . =A0I would be very happy if, having configured emacs to pop a completion = buffer emacs' focus moved there immediately.

/john
--f46d04451a7f40e43d04eb9f8a18--