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 22:00:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20201104161200.tyeo2r5jibdahukb.ref@Ergus> <20201104161200.tyeo2r5jibdahukb@Ergus> <234bba7f-fd5c-ed39-8a5e-8a6ce3125bf1@inventati.org> <20201105210915.3rl3z6jngsrzgbwv@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="30756"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: "Gregory Heytings via Emacs development discussions." , Ergus , Manuel Uberti , Jean Louis To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 05 23:02:31 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 1kanKw-0007sI-HA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 23:02:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39364 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kanKv-0002I4-GT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:02:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35760) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kanJe-0001np-JB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:01:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:56214) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kanJb-0001q3-6Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:01:10 -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 0A5M0xUn003089 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:01:00 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 0A5M1Slx016291; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:01:28 GMT In-Reply-To: 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 15:39:08 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:258766 Archived-At: >> This has been discussed at length earlier: it is in practice impossible >> to calculate the height of the minibuffer, and to calculate the size of >> the completion candidates list to insert in the minibuffer. Yet you >> need to do both to have a correct solution with the approach of the >> branch. > > With the current display code on `master`, I don't think the behaviors > you refer to can qualify as incorrect. > Which is why I said, in the two previous mails, "not 100% correct" and "not always correct". I did not think it was necessary to repeat "always" here. > > You can argue that they are less often preferable than some other > choice, but that's a far cry from incorrect, IMO, and then should be > fairly uncommon. So it's definitely not very high priority and > shouldn't decide whether we install a particular version of the code > right now. > My point is that now that `(setq icomplete-separator "\n")' works (in most but not all cases), there is no need for the specific vertical-icomplete implementation anymore. What is (or could be) needed is an implementation that is "more correct" (correct in all cases).