From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
To: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com>
Cc: sbaugh@catern.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Updating *Completions* as you type
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 09:58:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86leao519y.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ierttpdlqe4.fsf@janestreet.com> (Spencer Baugh's message of "Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:11:15 -0500")
>>>>> - Again, the user is still able to configure the display-sort-function
>>>>> by configuring the individual completion table.
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean that every individual completion table should have
>>>> a separate user option?
>>>
>>> No: only the completion tables which specify a display-sort-function in
>>> their metadata. All such completion tables should have a user option to
>>> configure that display-sort-function.
>>
>> How then users could change the sorting order for individual tables
>> that don't specify a display-sort-function to use an order different
>> from completions-sort?
>
> They can use the category if the table specifies one.
>
> If the table neither specifies a category nor provides a table-specific
> option, the display sort function for that table isn't currently
> configurable. Which I think we're both fine with?
I think we should gradually add a category to most completion tables
to make them completely configurable, not just with display-sort-function,
but with all possible metadata.
Adding a category resembles a long-lasting and still ongoing process of
adding specific minibuffer history as a symbol to the HIST argument
of different calls of read-from-minibuffer.
> So: we already accept that for some completion tables, it won't be
> possible to customize their display sort function out of the box.
>
>>> Well, yes. So then we agree that a user option for an individual
>>> completion table, if it exists, should take precedence over
>>> completion-category-overrides?
>>
>> The problem is that we can't distinguish two cases:
>>
>> 1. when display-sort-function is hard-coded in metadata
>> by the author of the completion table;
>> 2. when display-sort-function in metadata
>> gets the value from the user option.
>
> I think we should just eliminate any instances of case 1.
I don't think this is realistic to add an individual option in all cases.
> Case 1 just means the completion table's display sort function isn't
> currently configurable. Which I think we've already accepted will be
> the case for some tables, until we go and make them configurable either
> by adding a table-specific option, adding a category, or both.
>
>> Since we can't distinguish these cases, then it makes more sense
>> when completion-category-overrides overrides everything:
>>
>> (alist-get 'display-sort-function (alist-get category completion-category-overrides))
>> (alist-get 'display-sort-function metadata) ;; metadata with/out individual options
>> (alist-get 'display-sort-function (alist-get category completion-category-defaults))
>>
>> There is no problem with this because completion-category-overrides
>> is a user option as well, so everything still is under user control.
>
> Only if the completion table specifies a category. Which most do not.
>
> So we'd need to change it to specify a category.
Agreed.
> And if we're doing that, we could also change it to not hard-code
> a display-sort-function at the same time.
Disagreed when this means to add an option in all cases.
> That is, for any tables where the display-sort-function is currently
> hardcoded, we can add a category, and remove the hardcoded
> display-sort-function from the table metadata, and add the
> display-sort-function to completion-category-defaults.
>
>>> So then we're only disagreeing over whether such options should exist?
>>
>> Yes, I think we should add individual options only in exceptional cases.
>>
>>> These individual options would also provide a natural place to document
>>> behavior like "if you configure the display-sort-function for buffer
>>> completion to 'identity, then the buffer sort order will match
>>> (buffer-list)". But the user could still make use of that information
>>> by configuring the category.
>>
>> I agree that an option with documentation could help in such cases
>> when a non-trivial sorting function is provided for a completion table.
>>
>>>> I see no need to add individual options as all. Every completion table
>>>> that significantly differs from other tables so that it needs a separate
>>>> display-sort-function, could provide a separate category. For example,
>>>> there is a category 'buffer'. If 'switch-to-buffer' needs another
>>>> display-sort-function it could provide a category 'buffer-for-switching'.
>>>
>>> That won't work with the scenario I described before with sorting
>>> file-name completion by mtime, where changing the sorting requires also
>>> changing the completion table.
>>
>> I agree that individual options are required in such rare cases when
>> their values affect the completion table and its formatting.
>
> OK, I think I can agree with that, if we agree that in those rare cases,
> the individual options should take precedence over the category-based
> configuration.
The individual options can't take precedence until all tables don't
hardcode metadata that is hardly achievable.
>>> Also, this would require adding a category for essentially every
>>> completion table. For example, I see that read-from-kill-ring specifies
>>> a display-sort-function, currently set to 'identity.
>>
>> It's much simpler to add an extra line with a category.
>>
>>> If we wanted to make that configurable, it seems much easier to just do
>>>
>>> (if (eq action 'metadata)
>>> ;; Keep sorted by recency
>>> - '(metadata (display-sort-function . identity))
>>> + `(metadata (display-sort-function . ,read-from-kill-ring-sort))
>>> (complete-with-action action completions string pred)))
>>
>> This is an incomplete patch, there should be also a dozen of lines
>> with defcustom, its docstring, the version number and a list
>> of choices, etc. And all this for a very small percent of users
>> who would like to change this order. This is too wasteful.
>> It would be much more efficient to allow doing the same
>> by customizing completion-category-overrides.
>
> The docstring and list of choices for read-from-kill-ring-sort are
> something we want anyway - we would like to document that 'identity for
> read-for-kill-ring keeps the kill ring sorted by recency, for example.
> I see no better place to document that.
>
> The version number is also something we want anyway: if we just add a
> category to read-from-kill-ring in Emacs 30, this will work only in
> Emacs 30 and not in Emacs 29, and there's no way for a user to know that
> other than by reading NEWS.
I don't think such unnecessary defcustoms should be added lightly,
even documentation is of no help for such obvious things as 'identity'
that intuitively is understandable as keeping the original order.
> For such tables, I see three good possibilities (in order of my own
> preference):
>
> A.
> - Add read-from-kill-ring-sort defaulting to identity (with docstring)
> (diff is 1 line + defcustom)
>
> B.
> - Add read-from-kill-ring-sort defaulting to nil (with docstring)
> - add the 'read-kill category to the metadata
> - add 'read-kill to completion-category-defaults
> (diff is 3 lines + defcustom)
>
> C.
> - Remove display-sort-function from the metadata
> - add the 'read-kill category to the metadata
> - add 'read-kill to completion-category-defaults
> (diff is 3 lines)
>
> If you really don't want the defcustom and associated documentation, I'm
> OK with C.
>
> The option which I think is not good is:
>
> D.
> - add the 'read-kill category to the metadata
> - make completion-category-overrides take precedence over what is
> specified in the table metadata
>
> (diff is 1 line)
>
> This is a slightly smaller diff than option C, but I think it's a
> fundamentally worse approach than C, because in the rare cases where we
> do want an individual option for the table, we won't have a way for that
> option to take precedence over the broader category-based configuration.
I still don't understand why do you worry about this precedence when
the user option completion-category-overrides is nil by default.
Could you describe a use cases when such precedence might become a problem?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-23 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 107+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-12 23:53 Updating *Completions* as you type sbaugh
2023-10-13 6:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-10-13 18:01 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-14 7:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-10-14 19:26 ` Björn Bidar
[not found] ` <874jit2ef7.fsf@>
2023-10-14 19:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-10-14 16:51 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-14 17:56 ` sbaugh
2023-10-14 19:51 ` Dmitry Gutov
2023-10-13 6:34 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-13 19:04 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-14 16:58 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-14 20:05 ` sbaugh
2023-10-15 6:06 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-10-15 15:55 ` sbaugh
2023-10-16 11:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-10-16 14:50 ` Michael Albinus
2023-10-16 15:58 ` [External] : " Drew Adams
2023-10-16 12:16 ` sbaugh
2023-10-17 18:23 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-18 23:27 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-15 7:32 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-16 19:28 ` Rudolf Adamkovič
2023-10-17 18:38 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-15 20:31 ` Eshel Yaron
2023-10-16 3:18 ` [External] : " Drew Adams
2023-10-16 16:54 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-17 13:48 ` sbaugh
2023-10-17 18:35 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-17 22:57 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-18 3:04 ` [External] : " Drew Adams
2023-10-18 6:56 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-18 12:25 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-18 17:32 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-18 23:33 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-19 2:29 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-19 6:55 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-19 19:22 ` sbaugh
2023-11-20 7:51 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-20 15:24 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-20 17:47 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-20 18:50 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-21 7:58 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-21 12:40 ` sbaugh
2023-11-21 17:09 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-21 20:45 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-22 7:51 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-22 16:11 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-23 7:58 ` Juri Linkov [this message]
2023-11-23 12:36 ` sbaugh
2023-11-24 7:58 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-25 16:44 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-25 18:31 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-26 13:33 ` sbaugh
2023-11-27 7:28 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-28 14:38 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-28 15:03 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-11-28 17:13 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-28 17:36 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-11-29 7:11 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-29 13:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-11-29 14:14 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-29 14:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-11-29 15:21 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-29 15:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-11-29 19:17 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-30 6:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-11-30 12:33 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-30 14:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-11-28 23:56 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-11-29 3:33 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-12-03 17:25 ` Juri Linkov
2023-12-03 17:56 ` Eli Zaretskii
2023-12-06 17:17 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-28 17:16 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-28 23:36 ` Turning completion table lambdas into symbols Spencer Baugh
2023-11-28 23:51 ` Dmitry Gutov
2023-11-29 19:26 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-12-01 0:36 ` Dmitry Gutov
2023-11-29 7:18 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-21 12:54 ` Updating *Completions* as you type John Yates
2023-11-21 17:03 ` Juri Linkov
2023-11-21 22:27 ` John Yates
2023-10-20 6:49 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-17 15:01 ` sbaugh
2023-10-17 18:20 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-17 23:37 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-17 23:44 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-18 6:51 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-18 12:47 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-18 17:28 ` Juri Linkov
2023-10-18 23:32 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-16 3:19 ` [External] : " Drew Adams
2023-10-20 9:35 ` zcomplete Philip Kaludercic
2023-10-22 17:28 ` zcomplete Juri Linkov
2023-10-23 5:00 ` zcomplete Protesilaos Stavrou
2023-10-23 6:45 ` zcomplete Juri Linkov
2023-10-13 18:11 ` Updating *Completions* as you type Daniel Semyonov
2023-10-13 18:48 ` Spencer Baugh
2023-10-16 3:16 ` [External] : " Drew Adams
2023-10-16 9:25 ` Philip Kaludercic
2023-10-16 16:03 ` Drew Adams
2023-10-20 7:45 ` Philip Kaludercic
2023-10-20 16:10 ` Drew Adams
2023-10-16 22:55 ` Emanuel Berg
2023-10-17 6:09 ` Emanuel Berg
2023-10-17 0:44 ` Michael Heerdegen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=86leao519y.fsf@mail.linkov.net \
--to=juri@linkov.net \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=sbaugh@catern.com \
--cc=sbaugh@janestreet.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.