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: Doc of deprecated INITIAL-INPUT arg of completing-read Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:09:18 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87v8smt9lp.fsf@web.de> <87h6ic1l23.fsf@vagabond.tim-landscheidt.de> <87le7owawi.fsf@vagabond.tim-landscheidt.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13820"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Michael Heerdegen , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tim Landscheidt Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 13 21:13:22 2024 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 1rZz9d-0003QS-UG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:13:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rZz5y-0000bt-K3; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:09:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rZz5w-0000UB-Oq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:09:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rZz5r-000347-Er for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:09:32 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4EC25100068; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:09:24 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1707854958; bh=Z4OXDPF4JstiZwpNGE8i8H1k7rZv90jEyEzBQnov5zQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=VceUrgCEvtxFBraB54DaYyjvPOVPTMGr6ezORlb+zKFuuQ/eNk0Ynqz4zcguVD9FS 1ltSv8kFqcLbNA8f86c5Tzq1kCmSEiwcJ/f/gpvE31/buxsvuuNx+uir5gQusk4nY7 RmGRTP5cF/Oz7BfwdEMBKLaTtEBxV1+M/+M8kuVhrSpfy+0Fi1U62cpBbL1PTNGJzk 84LluArEHo4J9wiS36qZzFdLhhXVir/dUct6d5KL0+sObB/n2VpRU3/5hYguO3TH1h aQwSkZR7sfe+02+xfcqD5IGqoTHxqixraKhzk8Sz2TqNyS/jM+9AsOOqNPk96PdrrN tAXlvhDWGGetg== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CA9AA10001D; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:09:18 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.197.152]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2B8C12027F; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:09:18 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87le7owawi.fsf@vagabond.tim-landscheidt.de> (Tim Landscheidt's message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:07:25 +0000") 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:316187 Archived-At: > I'm not perplexed :-). What I find confusing is: > > a) The solution for this "very usual" use case is not men- > tioned anywhere in the documentation. Instead, the doc- > string (for completing-read) suggests a different work- > flow. The documentation probably needs to be improved in this respect, admittedly, but I can't see where the docstring suggests a different workflow (or more specifically, I suspect that it only does so if you have a particular workflow in mind to start with). > b) With this solution, if the user needs to change the de- > fault/initial value, he has to use one more keystroke > (M-n) than if INITIAL-INPUT had been used. But with your solution, the users that want not just to modify the default but to enter a different value need to first delete the initial value, (e.g. `C-a C-k`). You win some, you lose some. Stefan