From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: completion-cycle-threshold and a suggestion Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 20:57:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274489831 6785 80.91.229.12 (22 May 2010 00:57:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 00:57:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Leo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 22 02:57:10 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OFd1Z-0008Cq-MM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 May 2010 02:57:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35176 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OFd1Z-0003O7-AT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 20:57:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46086 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OFd1S-0003MK-T3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 20:57:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OFd1R-0005rs-NU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 20:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:65400 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OFd1R-0005ro-GI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2010 20:57:01 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAjI9ktFpZJF/2dsb2JhbACeGHK+QYUSBIw0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,281,1272859200"; d="scan'208";a="64784242" Original-Received: from 69-165-146-69.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO alfajor.home) ([69.165.146.69]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 21 May 2010 20:57:00 -0400 Original-Received: by alfajor.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 09ED7AED71; Fri, 21 May 2010 20:57:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Leo's message of "Fri, 21 May 2010 21:43:03 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:125027 Archived-At: > The current completion cycle has this issue, for example, assume there > are two possible completions 'feature' and 'feature-old', feature-old is > seen first. This is counter-intuitive to the behaviour without > completion cycle. I don't understand. AFAIK the completion-cycle code is careful to order the options using a heuristic based on the length of the completions (choosing shorter ones first). So are you saying that in your experience, the heuristic gives bad results, or that the heuristic somehow was not applied? Stefan