From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: handling many matches Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 19:31:05 +0300 Message-ID: <83y2qaqoxi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <119c0543-387d-4fad-b7fe-b4e07a7be4f8@default> <837dxuvohj.fsf@gnu.org> <83wo5usaui.fsf@gnu.org> <14f6ff0f-afcc-5cc2-b8ce-491209c1e739@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="19620"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: jonas@bernoul.li, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, adam@alphapapa.net, kyle@kyleam.com, drew.adams@oracle.com To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 02 18:32:07 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jUv3d-0004y2-TY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 18:32:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35450 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUv3c-00083l-VJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 12:32:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUv2u-0006r0-EH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 12:31:21 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:33223) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUv2q-0005xm-R8; Sat, 02 May 2020 12:31:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4517 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jUv2o-0004uR-36; Sat, 02 May 2020 12:31:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <14f6ff0f-afcc-5cc2-b8ce-491209c1e739@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 2 May 2020 19:13:18 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:248490 Archived-At: > Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jonas@bernoul.li, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, philippe.vaucher@gmail.com, adam@alphapapa.net, > kyle@kyleam.com > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 19:13:18 +0300 > > On 02.05.2020 16:52, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > If by "look" you mean to the user, then I envision a list of > > completion candidates that somehow "knows" what I'm after, and places > > those likely guesses near the beginning of the list. > > All fuzzy completion systems do that. Generally by scoring how well each > string resembles the input string. That criterion alone is not enough, IME. It is also important (sometimes much more important) what I'm doing, in what major mode, my previous completion attempts, etc. > > Like I said, I think the hopes it will deliver a significant enough > > improvement are overrated. It will certainly bloat the lists of > > candidates by factors, which is why I think it isn't a very good idea > > as long as we don't have some smart scoring of candidates. > > The amount of "bloat" will be strictly limited by the number of aliases > we add. Yes, and I tend to think we will add a lot. > I think there's a general agreement that we shouldn't go overboard. Even if there is such an agreement, I'm not sure we will be able to keep ourselves from going overboard. > > We need scoring that "learns" from what I do/did recently, > > and from my habits. Otherwise the list of candidates will remain > > hopelessly long, with no promise of having what I'm really looking for > > anywhere near the beginning. > > There are systems like that, including in third-party Emacs packages. > Personally, I'm not fond of the idea (the unpredictability, first of > all), and I'd rather we polish the current scoring algo first. When the first few candidates are what I want, predictability goes out the window. I'm a happy user when I find what I'm looking for fast.