From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ken manheimer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: reenabling icomplete operation during read-buffer Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:27:37 -0500 Message-ID: <2cd46e7f0902091527p7886f1fap33e330e73165f039@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1234222076 27451 80.91.229.12 (9 Feb 2009 23:27:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 23:27:56 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 10 00:29:10 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LWfYp-0006YH-Vq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:29:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52518 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LWfXW-0004U8-FZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:27:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LWfXR-0004Tr-O8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:27:41 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LWfXQ-0004TZ-T6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:27:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35245 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LWfXQ-0004TW-Nh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:27:40 -0500 Original-Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:56353) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LWfXQ-0001OG-AP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:27:40 -0500 Original-Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l27so1307077fgb.30 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:27:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JwUxALyVCgQP39K7ol7rFhkVTvBq/Y1YT6r05uoMgTg=; b=kQH7yLGEWAdawHeUUCWrUyhtDHt+jdUg9V5cDoBnK8HXTaKu9vMp+KHtYC5GHV5v4A FmT9QPdNe0kW2lUbR2xPoVKlWcEPh4AN/hSQ6c2XoJvIT4Al+CZ6wyjplCjgY72z9ddi NDVZwx7+P0k+EbCdXGOYz9FCIfEBum73FJVGs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=mh5hxgtIzPqhRBVXNYj/7LQEK8OYny5qbwEdtmwARV3S5YidiorzAcuSjCC/y8wNYr ZaCC8b/ep9PwaBzuDBGrKNwOPp/vbJrEifCi+MNjUeCdKEUHcwzY/6DhJ7gb9PqEmnXI Uje9wOfjh+XsLJuee8bN1X8A7bdufCnPItStg= Original-Received: by 10.103.176.20 with SMTP id d20mr401807mup.27.1234222057911; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:27:37 -0800 (PST) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:108916 Archived-At: i noticed that icomplete stopped operating during, eg, switch-to-buffer, in my CVS checkouts a good while back. i'm finally getting around to investigating, and see that read-buffer &c fail this condition in icomplete-simple-completing-p: (or t (not (functionp minibuffer-completion-table)) (eq icomplete-with-completion-tables t) (member minibuffer-completion-table icomplete-with-completion-tables)))) i believe i (or someone) put that in to weed out complicated situations where casual use of completion may be prohibitive, for instance, during file-name read operations where the filesystem could be remote or otherwise mediated. the thing is, this inhibition is not necessary for buffer-name-reading situations, but i haven't figured out a good way to recognize that situation, in order to reframe the above condition to allow for it. can anyone suggest a good way to do so? or am i heading in the wrong direction? thanks! -- ken http://myriadicity.net