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: Updating *Completions* as you type Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 09:58:25 +0200 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <86leao519y.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: <87bkd3z9bi.fsf@catern.com> <87ttqpwea9.fsf@catern.com> <86wmvlw178.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87bkcwx3ft.fsf@catern.com> <86y1g076vh.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87sf68unh1.fsf@catern.com> <86zg0fu99i.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <875y33v73h.fsf@catern.com> <87y1fztke8.fsf@catern.com> <86r0lrw17x.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87il5xlf9b.fsf@catern.com> <86y1esuajx.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <86v89ws5t3.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <86v89vzf1o.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87pm03jn3w.fsf@catern.com> <861qcjw3ch.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <86r0ki2on3.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40836"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/30.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: sbaugh@catern.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Spencer Baugh Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 23 09:24:49 2023 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 1r650x-000ANl-SH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 09:24:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r650J-0005Cl-27; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 03:24:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r650H-0005CW-D3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 03:24:05 -0500 Original-Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.199]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r650E-0003V9-Tn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 03:24:05 -0500 Original-Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 218F9FF806; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 08:23:57 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (Spencer Baugh's message of "Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:11:15 -0500") X-GND-Sasl: juri@linkov.net Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.70.183.199; envelope-from=juri@linkov.net; helo=relay9-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_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:313145 Archived-At: >>>>> - 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?