From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Awful completion buffer behaviour Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:40:00 +0200 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <86ee64y1vz.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: <878rwdtjum.fsf.ref@yahoo.com> <878rwdtjum.fsf@yahoo.com> <83o858yf4w.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14308"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: Po Lu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 22 18:57:31 2021 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 1n05rm-0003cw-U7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 18:57:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39000 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n05rl-0004Ze-ML for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 12:57:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55188) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n05kx-0007ww-4S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 12:50:28 -0500 Original-Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:56437) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n05kv-0007JZ-83; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 12:50:26 -0500 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0BD86000A; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 17:50:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <83o858yf4w.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 22 Dec 2021 14:53:51 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.70.183.195; envelope-from=juri@linkov.net; helo=relay3-d.mail.gandi.net X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:282806 Archived-At: > I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the month-long experiment > with turning this on by default. Is it to decide whether it will stay > on in Emacs 29? If so, the experiment can be terminated now: we will > not make this the default, certainly not in Emacs 29, and maybe not > even in Emacs 30. It is too radical departure of age-old Emacs > behavior in the default completion commands. > > If the reason for the experiment is to decide whether to revert this > change because this behavior is hated too much, we can continue with > the experiment, of course. But I don't see why we shouldn't offer > this as optional behavior anyway, so I think the experiment is not > needed, and the best way ahead is to document this as optional > behavior, and turn it off by default. Like Philip already said the idea was to gather feedback, both positive and negative, to decide how to develop this feature further. Note that no one complained about the default value of another variable 'completion-wrap-movement' that is enabled now too. So now it's clear we have two possible directions: try to find such new keys that don't get in the way in the long-standing usage scenarios, and provide more variables (possibly optional) for customization.