Re: complexity in minibuffer

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 02.06.2021 22:03, João Távora wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:31 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
>>
>> On 02.06.2021 18:06, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> I suspect they should get an `md` argument instead (which will include
>>> the `group-function`, of course).
>>
>> Good idea: this way the argument is not tied to an optional feature, but
>> would OTOH provide renderers' access to any such feature that we might
>> add in the future.
> 
> Agree  we have to give _some_ state of the completion operation
> to the renderer, not just the completions themselves.   But lets
> concentrate that state as much as possible.  Ideally, as I think
> you once suggested, we'd have a "completion operation instance"
> object/ADT that contains the collection of completions and all the
> paraphernalia used to manipulate it.  We'd pass _that_ around,
> instead of md's, minibuffer-* special vars, completion-extra-properties
> and whatnot.  Not sure if easy to realize but at least that's what
> I would aim for.

Ideally, perhaps, but I don't think we're at the stage where we can 
confidently implement that yet. This completion context with the session 
cache, etc.

We still might pass MD even in that case, because it's not just a 
function of the current completion, but of the current field as well. 
Depend on what the info a particular function will want/need.