From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Should (icomplete-mode) explicitly disable fido-mode? Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 19:19:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: <7ADEE954-6074-4C8E-9EB7-7BF93F6F46BD@schwartzmeyer.com> <87o8pxjfi1.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="11041"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Andrew Schwartzmeyer , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 06 01:20:37 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 1jhLdc-0002kl-Dn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 Jun 2020 01:20:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56836 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jhLdb-0003rH-Gm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 19:20:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36058) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jhLcx-0003Gt-TO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 19:19:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:7358) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jhLcw-0005Jh-Ea for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2020 19:19:55 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 36DC1441518; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D8D3C441515; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:19:50 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1591399190; bh=Z5UrUDgXF58p3zxtGmejmqdokoeWaLHV6MY637ZrYKE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Rg3f1o2OZ6iyPi8+0A1GXaVKBGF9cuiqR5hvG1KHf6PjBu+Vjy50N44Q7eCL0sKSU VFa5AMOfbc7XBALckNAO/dx69DONEpjDIRSh+L1dsHGNY+Ey9k+SQI35wKeTpXTqhq lFROv+tW02zLPo/XGUZEN8LX2wUSVQyBYW84wYJOf/r5rJ899zYf66y0ESbSLTduQZ zqhEU0/k/TyfeFAuWoDaRA1hQ3itKryBnY7EToZ/JdLol95tGNk+AGttg3we3jrsOb n4IacQxs9NX1+tJ2bh30GXjA2u5h0lAlwAVW/aSSG9RPBGGEFtJUgnKwy7KnZJ7Czm DLnVvzxoKeZrw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.17.179]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D3B01220CD; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:19:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87o8pxjfi1.fsf@gmail.com> (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vo?= =?windows-1252?Q?ra=22's?= message of "Fri, 05 Jun 2020 23:48:38 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/05 19:19:52 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN 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:251921 Archived-At: > Maybe Stefan Monnier would have something to say about this Probably not ;-) Various behaviors make sense and I don't have a strong opinion about what should happen. The only thing that might be worth investigating is why icomplete-vertical needs to call icomplete-mode when it's already enabled. Maybe we could arrange for this not to be needed at all and avoid the problem. Stefan