Minibuffer keymaps

Minibuffer keymaps

[T.V Raman]

Why do we have both

minibuffer-mode-map and minibuffer-local-completion-map AKA, do we
the latter?



-- 

-- 

RE: [External] : Minibuffer keymaps

[Drew Adams]

> Why do we have both
> 
> minibuffer-mode-map and minibuffer-local-completion-map AKA, do we
> the latter?

Because use of `minibuffer-mode-map' doesn't necessarily involve completion, so it doesn't have keys that complete minibuffer content.

There are several minibuffer keymaps, related by inheritance in some cases.

Re: Minibuffer keymaps

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 20:27:40 -0700
> From: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
> 
> Why do we have both
> 
> minibuffer-mode-map and minibuffer-local-completion-map AKA, do we
> the latter?

The latter inherits from the former and adds some completion-specific
bindings to it.  See the node "Completion Commands" in the ELisp
manual, where this is explained.

Re: Minibuffer keymaps

[T.V Raman]

Thanks! That said, are there cases today where minibuffer doesn't offer
completion? -- Perhaps read-string  and some others, but we could
simplify things if it's worth it by just having completion available in
all minibuffers.

-- 

Re: Minibuffer keymaps

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 07:41:55 -0700
> 
> Thanks! That said, are there cases today where minibuffer doesn't offer
> completion? -- Perhaps read-string  and some others, but we could
> simplify things if it's worth it by just having completion available in
> all minibuffers.

I don't think we want to force all minibuffer-reading programs to use
completion.  There's no reason for that, and having two maps doesn't
make Emacs much more complex than if we had just one.  The flexibility
of being able to use the minibuffer without completion is more
important.