From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] (icomplete-vertical-mode): Add support for affixations and, annotations Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 19:39:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87zgwlb4xc.fsf@gmail.com> <617d06ca-27bf-2ae8-26eb-1042123499d3@daniel-mendler.de> <87pmxhb1rs.fsf@gmail.com> <23510125-37b9-e87e-3590-5322f44772ce@daniel-mendler.de> <87a6olazff.fsf@gmail.com> <93d2cfe9-bae8-bf94-486f-7569aa31491d@daniel-mendler.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14316"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= , "emacs-devel@gnu.org" , Juri Linkov To: Daniel Mendler Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 24 01:40:25 2021 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 1lkxhp-0003WD-6W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 May 2021 01:40:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33754 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lkxhn-0006YD-4r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 May 2021 19:40:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49800) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lkxgZ-0005qg-Oq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 May 2021 19:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:48688) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lkxgW-0001pb-JI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 May 2021 19:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 53902808A3; Sun, 23 May 2021 19:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DEE0F8065D; Sun, 23 May 2021 19:39:01 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1621813141; bh=s5w3EXOTtBIVKHjfQKNYcUdOrPpXaKsFIDFg0HpP3UM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=h7MrWs4l+41JpddEreXeC9vUKE+LSCcR1BbdScr6cA5Y7s7IELwsxxZOWeTEJ1R75 0l1gh4+/jmdmc5Sd8c6TIhO/5Hcb+LChrkREyLl4Q026H2lDIm92Q+KQ6nySenmWCs zwul6b7MSwMwfxBZI3XI+bOSuIKVrWFrvrSvYLitX+wLr3aDofuLFiSGPDzbm8IVjm L7s6qIbTpF2tgUADVBONuCRZLni35toi6TwRtenbYWa8o+jrfk1hSPDHcgkKYVcQ6F Lpnn25xtOe5Oo7PfHNFF9Ow+/PKYH1UArzD+O+WNfAyEsLIwrR4cMJMAqXGNDgYfGc eKowgX5/VuH5Q== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-196-163-239.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.163.239]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DD151204AE; Sun, 23 May 2021 19:39:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <93d2cfe9-bae8-bf94-486f-7569aa31491d@daniel-mendler.de> (Daniel Mendler's message of "Mon, 24 May 2021 01:04:03 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca 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_HELO_NONE=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:269717 Archived-At: Daniel Mendler [2021-05-24 01:04:03] wrote: > On 5/23/21 11:54 PM, Jo=E3o T=E1vora wrote: >> I'd prefer if we wait a bit. For one, adding this to >> icomplete-vertical-mode would encourage more backend writers to use what >> we both seem to agree is a flawed API, thus making the effort we are >> discussing more difficult. > I thought a minute bit about this, therefore another mail. While I agree > with you that the status quo of having both an `annotation-function` and > an `affixation-function` is not beautiful API-wise, I am not sure if an I don't have a strong preference between re-using `annotation-function` and adding a new method. I think we should first figure out what is the "ideal" API for that, and only once we have it can we see whether it can be retro-fitted into `annotation-function`. Stefan