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: [PATCH] Support "\n" in icomplete-separator Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:40:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20201106151541.dpgep7borlja25su@Ergus> <837dqv5huk.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtzp2qj0.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1p11369.fsf@gnu.org> <837dqr27zs.fsf@gnu.org> <83361f22ah.fsf@gnu.org> <83sg9fzlto.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1ozz22j.fsf@gnu.org> <83d00izloj.fsf@gnu.org> <83361ezix2.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2j6xy4m.fsf@gnu.org> 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="40335"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, spacibba@aol.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, andreyk.mad@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 13 13:42:00 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 1kdYOt-000ANV-UH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:41:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40810 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kdYOs-0006I6-TD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:41:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kdYNg-0005pH-Hq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:40:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:51589) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kdYNc-0005ua-Lz; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:40:44 -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 0ADCeI3q001955 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:40:18 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 0ADCehrP020974; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:40:43 GMT In-Reply-To: <83y2j6xy4m.fsf@gnu.org> 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 = 2020/11/13 07:40:33 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:259131 Archived-At: > > The important aspect is that in the browsers the lists are as wide or as > narrow as the fields from which they drop; in Emacs it is always as wide > as the frame, and that is many times way too wide. > Now I'm not sure anymore what we are talking about. I was not talking about lists in browsers in general; of course a combo box in a webpage for example is not larger than the field from which it drops. I was talking about what is, in a browser, the equivalent of the minibuffer in Emacs (because it is there that you enter your "commands") : the address bar. And I showed, with numbers, that with the default configuration of the browser used by the vast majority (66%) of the world population, the combo box of the address bar is larger than the largest possible Emacs minibuffer (again with the default configuration). I think you underestimate the fact that the UI expectations of most people today have been heavily influenced by smartphones (or "portable listening and surveillance device" as RMS would call them ;-) and tablets. On a smartphone the combo box when you type something in the address bar (and generally in most apps) typically uses 100% of the available screen space, on a tablet it's typically 50-60%. In the same vein, most people today prefer to use full-screen apps, and what you consider to be "wasted screen space" is not at all a problem for them. > > More importantly, in Emacs the list doesn't drop down, it pushes the > mode line up instead. Which is counter-intuitive for those who expect > the drop-down list or combo-box UI which drops from the field for which > it shows the possible completion candidates. So our emulation of that > UI is poor and looks unprofessional. > So it's the fact that the mode line is pushed up to display the completion candidates in a drop-down way that worries you? IMO you're overestimating the importance of this, and IMO it is not at all counter-intuitive. There are many ways to display such things, for example the system search bar in macOS is positioned at the center of the screen with completion candidates displayed below, but in Windows it is positioned at the bottom of the screen with completion candidates displayed above. All apps are different, and I don't see why the fact that Emacs doesn't behave like another app (BTW, which one should be the reference?) would make it counter-intuitive. > > Imagine that we would do something like that when other applications use > menus, for example -- this is very similar. > What do you mean? That the eternal nature of menus is to work top-down? That's not true, the Windows start menu is bottom-up, and I've never seen this as a problem. I've never heard anyone complaining about it either. And the current trend seems to be menus that work left-right (with the menu title replaced by an icon). > > Of course, if some people like this, I don't see why we shouldn't have > it. It's just a pity that we waste so much energy on these poor-man > emulations instead of providing the "real thing". > But what is "the real thing"? What macOS does? What Windows does? What Chrome does? What ... does? >>> or the small Google Search window to the right of the address bar. >> >> AFAIK it is not "activated" by default, as it is redundant with the >> address bar. > > No, it is not redundant: the address bar is for addresses, the search > box is for typing search strings. The difference becomes apparent when > you look at the completion candidates each one offers. But that's an > aside. > That might have been the case some years ago, but browsers are now clever enough to make a distinction between URLs and queries. I can't tell what happens on your computer, but on mine typing "foo" in the search box and in the address bar lists the exact same completion candidates. Which is why the search box isn't there in the default configuration, and why I did not add it.