From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b0e318d 2/2: Score flex-style completions according to match tightness Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:08:17 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20190213212413.868.40960@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190213212415.148B9209D7@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <0ba3ca47-c7d6-a608-536e-94784ba3384b@yandex.ru> <4f4e9ccd-b152-2b37-cad2-6c96b0a64d84@yandex.ru> <646c8d35-89a7-b12f-8a78-b05e6d8f781c@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="152962"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel , Dmitry Gutov To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 21 02:14:36 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h6mHy-000dcY-QD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 02:14:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57698 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6mHx-0001Fy-Ml for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:14:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60219) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6mHq-0001Bz-Oa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:14:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6mBw-0002Lr-Fm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:08:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.201]:53692) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6mBw-0002JP-1r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:08:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (mail01.iro.umontreal.ca [127.0.0.1]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398B180FD8BD for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:08:19 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; h=content-type:content-type:mime-version:user-agent:in-reply-to :date:date:references:message-id:subject:subject:to:from:from; s=dkim; t=1553130498; x=1553994499; bh=wawkpRuo7ObY5XTFpk6NGAeW 2O1URO0fxkflPS90GmM=; b=PqnWrKnEJCkW+l5LoqfkrlSDROJTFAmvanNYGoLC ajwL2g1FoLxE8EQtIvKALDg0Z7RQDrWZFzwuhm+jqbyggDB8yqUjTsDg0aNR0dkP Gl/zGBnZzjxGAOKq0RnOPSxMjTLmkdRNw6EtkbAZAy0n9UnHfelWAN2WqpYcHv7E /Vx35D2GzpmDorzFXa42KjpF3IXcZ+ja2r+UEQGqCRz/dI15VzANHX8pDOv9URlF rpmCH2ZSL0XLkUIcFLBbC7mZ1uUBs4laEP3Ld9kuHmKBcb8UMZ8osIdNKwnk32TW K5L0vyIfyPyiZAq6TgUa/KlIvXVwpzeLzNwKniUrTLv0VA== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at iro.umontreal.ca Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (mail01.iro.umontreal.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n8KF_PWKYtyi for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from pastel (75-119-242-252.dsl.teksavvy.com [75.119.242.252]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4404080FD8A3; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:08:18 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vo?= =?windows-1252?Q?ra=22's?= message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:00:53 +0000") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.201 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:234439 Archived-At: >> FWIW, I think if basic is fast enough and flex is 2x slower, then flex >> is likely fast enough as well (or the contrapositive: if flex is too >> slow and basic is only 2x faster, then basic is also too slow). > > Hmmm, slightly confused, but I think we're currently in the > "contrapositive" side (at least given the UI problems that I describe > below). Anyway, this is orthogonal, but I do think that flex can be > made faster so that it is only, say 1.2x, slower than basic in the worst > case. I'd say it's worth a shot. Depending on the "basic" > implementation, it could even be faster. What I'm saying is that a slowdown of 2x is basically irrelevant here: it's fast enough (maybe those rare people running on really slow machine will simply not enable it, but I'm not worried). > I don't understand: while-no-input _is_ there, at least it is doing that > which I was going to attempt. I thought you wanted to replace the icomplete-delay with while-no-input, rather than just add while-no-input. Sorry. > If somehow while-no-input were able to detect interruptions at a more > finer grained level, I think icomplete-completions would be interrupted > earlier. A (dumb) way to fix this is by simply adding a call to > input-pending-p to one of the critical sections: If it takes 2s to notice input, maybe it's a bug. These things depend on the OS you're running (IIRC we're much less good at it under MacOS), but it's worth reporting it. Stefan