bug#18643: 25.0.50; elisp--expect-function-p

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 10/09/2014 07:31 AM, Leo Liu wrote:
> It is the false negatives that kill its usefulness in the case of elisp.

I disagree with the word "kill" here. Somewhat diminish, maybe.

> For example, (ert-deftest |) and (defun |) no longer have the
> completions I need.

These would be trivial to improve.

>> I'm pretty sure writing a new variable definition is a much less
>> frequent operation than referring to a variable in a function, or
>> writing a function call. And code completion is most useful when one is
>> referring to existing variables and functions.
>
> I won't jump to such conclusions so soon. You are guessing users'
> editing habits too much.

In which part? The lower frequency of new definitions is self-evident, I 
think.

> What is hard is having a good algorithm to determine completion types
> correctly. Unfortunately what we have has too many false negatives. I'd
> much prefer offering multiple candidates instead of showing no
> completions and with completion-cycling I can get to most completions in
> under a second.

In that case, I guess you'll have to add a user option. 
`lisp-completion-at-point-uses-context', or something like that.

> My bug report is not based on anything other than completion-at-point,

Does that mean my suggestions can't be based on anything else?

> the plain/standard emacs completion UI, which is what I use for elisp
> for a long while and I am quite content with it. It can be less optimal
> for other languages. but for elisp it has worked well in the past.

I've been using it for a while as well, and I wouldn't say it was, or 
is, perfect.