From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Helmut Eller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Generalizing find-definition Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 23:41:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20141102151524.0d9c665c@forcix> <867fy0or7p.fsf@yandex.ru> <86ppbqn841.fsf@yandex.ru> <86mw6o3k28.fsf@yandex.ru> <548F5B60.8050509@yandex.ru> <548F5FFD.5010703@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1418683309 17388 80.91.229.3 (15 Dec 2014 22:41:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 15 23:41:42 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0eKk-0002au-7q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 23:41:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42203 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0eKj-0004M5-RW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:41:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0eKY-0004Lw-R8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:41:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0eKP-0007e1-PT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:41:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]:64770) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0eKP-0007dv-Hq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:41:21 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id em10so10616508wid.11 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:41:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=B3YUiteI6kXJ7G30WBtXmN6e5ERIUVjBy4wA7jnZlx8=; b=v3NG+RUUP8T5RxgjmzJNOCXpaIgBGQkhB5NcgBwqRPJch29few9PjarW7+Wlfx5as7 EvPWbeOJaGYFw4TxJ0Q4LmADsrFLh7I3ep01v3FEYguRhpDOauRDmA+vzS6pqCAzzqGk lOgjf9WYVt/n2uhBVEAw08AcJviD9nTtf8LiDm1lL+WZ821+4nU0tv11zrcEvxK35gFi 3gAdZKSBPAKuWlVlD9GwoGxU2l6iO6hLxE+nkq+ZG3Er6j0IJC+Fcvedjdhbi4iS1Zvg EuRXBTvum7mzuTTxB2a7ca4T2zcrr5eDhkrPoFVaWiTbR4IqnWk0zlmvYBLDlLQKMaf/ lWLA== X-Received: by 10.180.84.98 with SMTP id x2mr34465146wiy.14.1418683280929; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:41:20 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ix ([212.46.172.140]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nj9sm14855889wic.10.2014.12.15.14.41.19 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:41:20 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from helmut by ix with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0eKN-0001Za-OF; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 23:41:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <548F5FFD.5010703@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:26:05 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::232 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:180187 Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 16 2014, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > Ok, sorry. I misunderstood. So, only strings? That's not bad, the > string can be that "imprecise" value, and a property will signal that > the backend will have to find out what the identifier is, maybe using > the value of that property (likely marker), or the current value of > point. Yes, that's the idea. >> There's still the problem of how to put text properties on the result of >> completing-read. > > Do we really need to? I think the identifier-completion-table can > manage to contain only unambiguous entries. > > Even if we could carry text properties through `completing-read', the > user won't see them when choosing, so all strings in the table will > have to be different anyway. What I'm saying is that my original proposal of having a read-identifier-form-minibuffer make sense as it allows backends to add text properties more easily than a completion table. And calling completing-read isn't difficult for the backends if they already have the completion table. Helmut