Juri Linkov wrote:
>> -(defun compilation-read-command (command)
>> +(defun compilation-prompt-read-shell-command (command)
>>     (read-shell-command "Compile command: " command
>>                         (if (equal (car compile-history) command)
>>                             '(compile-history . 1)
>>                           'compile-history)))
>>   
>> +(defun compilation-prompt-read-command-with-completion (command)
>> +  (completing-read "Compile command: " compile-history
>> +                   nil nil command
>> +                   (if (equal (car compile-history) command)
>> +                       '(compile-history . 1)
>> +                     'compile-history)))
> Thanks.  The only problem I see is that the function name
> doesn't indicate that it's completing on compile-history.
> Probably a better name would be:
>
>    compilation-read-command-with-history-completion

I see what you are saying, however, I do like the current 
`compilation-prompt` prefix on
these commands, as it distinguishes them from `compilation-read-command`.

If I were to keep both the `-prompt` prefix, and the 
`history-completion` suffix,
I worry that the command name would be too long at 55 chars.

Instead, I suggest the name 
`compilation-prompt-read-with-history-completion`

Effectively dropping the word `command`. I think `compilation-prompt` is 
enough and `command` doesn't add
any information.