From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Two problems of completion Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:36 -0400 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1209593047 15048 80.91.229.12 (30 Apr 2008 22:04:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Herbert Euler Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 01 00:04:43 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1JrKPk-0002RO-8m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 May 2008 00:04:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56473 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JrKP3-0000Vy-AC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:03:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JrKNC-0006mo-Nt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:58 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JrKNB-0006kS-2M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44982 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JrKNA-0006kF-Mg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:56 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JrKNA-0003cc-Df for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:56 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JrKMq-0006d4-IS; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:36 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Herbert Euler on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:57:29 +0800) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:96247 Archived-At: Currently SPC is bound to minibuffer-complete-word in minibuffer. With partial completion facilities implemented for minibuffer, I don't know whether it is still right to bind SPC to this command, Partial completion facilities are an optional mode, so they have no effect on the question of the default binding of SPC. Thanks for reporting the bugs.