RE: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >> In case of no completions it will be formatted to: "0 possible
> >> completions".
> >
> > Why?  Why wouldn't *Completions* just be
> > removed?  And "[No match]" is already echoed.
>
> In the original code there is a message to print when there are no
> completions, that's where the original question came from. Actually the
> new code is simpler.

Dunno what that means.  What "original code"?
And I see nothing in your "original question"
(the start of this thread) about any of this.

I don't care whether "the new code is simpler"
(and simpler than what - what old code?).

I'm interested in the user experience.
Coding that experience isn't the problem
(shouldn't be, anyway).

> > Sounds like things are getting more, not less,
> > complicated for users (maybe overengineering?).
>
> For the user everything is pretty much the same.

Doesn't sound like it - not regarding what I
asked about, at least.

I have nothing against keeping *Completions*
showing and updating it as a user changes the
pattern to match (and either explicitly asks
for a rematch or has elected to get automatic
rematching).

In fact, I invented such behavior for Emacs
(a couple decades ago).

But why would we not _remove_ *Completions*
when there are no matches?

We tell users in the echo area that there are
no matches.  Why also show an empty buffer,
for nonexistent completions, with a redundant
message there saying there are none?

(That's IBM's "This page intentionally left
blank."  But at least there was a reason for
that notice.)

Maybe "the new code is simpler".  It sounds
like the new user experience is less simple
- and maybe a step backward.

I understand your feature would be optional.
It sounds like it has room for improvement.

> > Why would we ever say "0 possible completions"?
> >
> > Why bother with "possible"?  We never show
> > IMpossible completions, do we?
> >
> > When there are no matches we just tell users
> > there's no match.  Always have.  Simple.

And your answer is?