From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Any objection to adding completing-read-function? Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:27:45 -0700 Message-ID: <21E601B384E14788A5CDF8AD49535D75@us.oracle.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306855688 6524 80.91.229.12 (31 May 2011 15:28:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Stefan Monnier'" , "'Leo'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 31 17:28:04 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QRQrS-0000ok-Pb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:28:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37498 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QRQrS-0002LS-Bh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:28:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52598) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QRQrP-0002LJ-Kf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:28:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QRQrO-0006zP-Np for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:27:59 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:40556) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QRQrO-0006z8-IY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:27:58 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id p4VFRsFh013504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 31 May 2011 15:27:55 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4VFRrod012820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 31 May 2011 15:27:53 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt015.oracle.com (abhmt015.oracle.com [141.146.116.24]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p4VFRlvY017753; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:27:47 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.55.154) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 31 May 2011 08:27:46 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcumyB2SpyujK240S5+xNkG0rE6Fzh43HOgQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4DE508FC.007D:SCFMA922111,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.121 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:139983 Archived-At: 1. Leo's original patch said this near the beginning of the doc string for `completing-read': "This function calls `completing-read-function' to do the work" That's very clear. What finally got implemented removed that explanation and just added this to the very end of the (very long) doc string: "See also `completing-read-function'." That's insufficiently clear, IMO. There is a big difference between the two in terms of communication to users. The former makes clear what `completing-read-function' is about - its role for `completing-read'. The latter relegates `completing-read-function' to a "see also". I have the same comment wrt `read-file-name'. IMO it would be preferable to say that it calls `read-file-name-function' to do the work, instead of just adding a "see also" at the very end. 2. I would also prefer it if the code for `completing-read-function' and its treatment were in Lisp, not C. No, I won't be submitting a patch. ;-) Dunno how easy it would be to move this to Lisp, but IMO it would be preferable if it, just like `read-file-name-function', were in minibuffer.el. These two variables are parallel. At this stage in the game it doesn't seem like we should be adding completion code to the C sources. Ideally we should be moving the last remaining pieces of the completion code (e.g., `completing-read') completely to Lisp instead. How about putting this on the TODO list?