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: [GNU ELPA] New package proposal: aggressive-completion.el Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:26:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87o8evok58.fsf@gnu.org> <8735w7y98k.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtue5f6x.fsf@tcd.ie> <8735w5rh3s.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22311"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tassilo Horn Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 04 22:27:17 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 1lT9L3-0005kM-38 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 22:27:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49926 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lT9L2-0002RI-5G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:27:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38486) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lT9KU-00021T-Fe for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:26:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:41982) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lT9KR-0000nF-KX; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 16:26:41 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8430744143C; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 16:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2F22F440AB4; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 16:26:37 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1617567997; bh=o1aUjyMcR2cBaSQD6a2woBXp8F/aTlIOEYLZETwWM8I=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kptiynHHsYPs2gWoYzBVta/asM0V0ttcBCSDebdyXsO6k26YsGGeRuxCBLWXV3+vZ EV1AdIedPMzJzI7GTjgLOkZt/yRzlZHUNrshsrvQorPJWsc1/CV3J1YMkAHD5nk272 sEObVdjN1W6wR3wwvoHel9z/wRJjVRnyHaLavvSqGOmR+VWlGRvxeBxQzsoX50Zvam rF6C120dn4zQUzj9YpuK6e3haCx5M7X3ke2mhiU5HUuBL5TApy0L3gTzVlWu7s+yKx 3eSVbHbfVpkxOKb1zbMQPm0sAkltIXE1WuXaETRclDWLhOLFgvK4G6Jr9DrCrIZ5wX aFIa1SoDAJl8w== Original-Received: from alfajor (104-222-126-84.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.222.126.84]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92B371202BC; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 16:26:36 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <8735w5rh3s.fsf@gnu.org> (Tassilo Horn's message of "Sun, 04 Apr 2021 21:05:10 +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:267396 Archived-At: >>> (defcustom aggressive-completion-no-complete-commands >>> '( left-char icomplete-fido-backward-updir minibuffer-complete >>> right-char delete-backward-char backward-kill-word >>> backward-kill-paragraph backward-kill-sentence backward-kill-sexp >>> delete-char kill-word kill-line completion-at-point) >>> "Commands after which automatic completion is not performed." >>> :type '(repeat command)) [...] > How hard can it be to get it right on the first try?!? ;-) BTW, you might want to document (via comments) the reason behind all those choices. E.g. the set of possible completions generally depends on the position of `point` (e.g. for the `partial-completion` style, there's an implicit `*` at point), so whether or not to refresh the *Completions* buffer after `left-char` (for example) is not as obvious a decision as one might think. Also, listing command names inevitably can cause problems for circumstances where another command name (e.g. defined as a thin wrapper for a standard command) is used. I don't really have a better solution to offer, tho, unless you can think of a clear statement of which kinds of commands should be included/excluded, such that we could then check using hooks that let us record what the command has actually done. Stefan