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: Why fido, icycles, ido, icomplete Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:30:54 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20191106212018.cnddqzlo5rpdhi6s.ref@Ergus> <20191106212018.cnddqzlo5rpdhi6s@Ergus> <877e4c1x3r.fsf@gmail.com> <20191106232153.bb756hrf4ctwegkp@Ergus> <87ftj0eeum.fsf@telefonica.net> <20191107004718.pxb3m7hzecbxz7uu@Ergus> <8736f0e8an.fsf@telefonica.net> <87k18bctm4.fsf@telefonica.net> <87bltncou8.fsf@telefonica.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="179390"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?windows-1252?Q?=D3scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 07 23:32:00 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 (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iSqJr-000kZK-FC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 23:31:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48564 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iSqJp-0000nx-S5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:31:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59616) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iSqIt-0000ni-Nf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:31:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iSqIs-0000c0-4F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:30:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:30027) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iSqIr-0000ar-T3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:30:58 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F234E449994; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:30:56 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B5F33449984; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:30:55 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1573165855; bh=7f8JT92zi9JPlnQPn3tdjaUQ/7Au9IqM9AYE+vr22uE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=IZbf3nUxMqq5aVv8IlN3cmCQGJqyAKdGvD+LyAJggJXHYnd6tr6Gel0ZkAjmzkPoe +vH5PcI26FaPAsz48lDUrVyXbgNSGiiYeoe09h1J0Oz/x75LYPgyBcTeKJ7M81fp+6 kj5nFblFYSzMG8NuqmxjjypxKxzieiRpyu4C9jal1BAHIsjJ9bdix/vrQU4xuACA7a rKVP1PYDsJFT4rYvdQubWh2Mc4Pg7KJug9JbikHaH616QFWnWC2LJ8j1Wt/mWtUh+T BT1VoWtZnRbAdb//yvhTtHfH20QlfU9ir7rtAFDvJdev6+LRpai8QkW4d7LoLR1YqD +HI4x6FN7Xf0Q== Original-Received: from lechazo (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F973120732; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:30:55 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87bltncou8.fsf@telefonica.net> (=?windows-1252?Q?=22=D3scar?= Fuentes"'s message of "Thu, 07 Nov 2019 23:18:39 +0100") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:241959 Archived-At: > Those customizations replace Ido's candidate-handling algorithm and > dramatically alters its UI. So much for an unintelligible package :-) I don't think it's unintelligible. It's just difficult to make it interact with the existing "standard" completion code because it's structured fairly differently. So it's hard to make use if ido code in the standard UI and vice-versa. > What you say is very reasonable but sometimes this task is not worth the > trouble Not sure what "this task" refers to. If it refers to the retrofitting, I fully agree. If it refers to making (some of) the features more widely available (potentially by re-implementing them), then I generally disagree. Stefan