From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Feature branches review please Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:30:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20201104161200.tyeo2r5jibdahukb.ref@Ergus> <20201104161200.tyeo2r5jibdahukb@Ergus> Reply-To: Gregory Heytings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9259"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ergus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 05 09:37:27 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kaalr-0002KI-5o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 09:37:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50480 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kaalp-0007Dp-R8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 03:37:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59290) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kaakw-0006lB-29 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 03:36:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:63679) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kaaku-0005a9-4q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 03:36:29 -0500 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:ghe@faeroes.freeshell.org [205.166.94.9]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 0A58UTwL007785 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:30:29 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 0A58UvZU012565; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:30:57 GMT In-Reply-To: <20201104161200.tyeo2r5jibdahukb@Ergus> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=ghe@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/05 03:30:36 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = ??? X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:258712 Archived-At: Hi Ergus, > > The icomplete-vertical feature branch is pretty much ready, please if > any maintainer could give it a last review and tell me anything else > needed to merge into master? > You may have followed the (heated) discussions about displaying completion candidates vertically in the minibuffer about a month ago. Short summary: 1. During these discussions, Eli added two lines in xdisp.c, and icomplete-vertical now only requires `(setq icomplete-separator "\n")'. 2. These two lines do not implement a 100% correct icomplete-vertical, sometimes the prompt is still hidden (in cases where it could/should be displayed). But the approach you use (calculating the height of the minibuffer contents pixelwise) is not 100% correct either. 3. The only correct approach is to ask redisplay to start displaying the minibuffer at beginning of buffer. I provided a simple solution to do this, but Eli doesn't like it. He thinks another solution (using text properties) should be implemented. Stefan thinks yet another solution (using the buffer redisplay routines instead of using a specific code for minibuffers) should be used. In short, there is no clear agreement. 4. FWIW, I (and a few others) have been using the solution I provided, and it works flawlessly. Gregory