Re: on helm substantial differences

[Protesilaos Stavrou <info@protesilaos.com>]

On 2020-11-16, 16:04 -0800, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

>> >> Like there are already possible choices 'horizontal' and 'vertical'
>> >> in the user option 'completions-format', it could also support
>> >> a new choice like 'rich'.
>> >
>> > `rich' is a poor choice, IMO - it doesn't mean much.
>> 
>> This is a reference to the package ivy-rich
>
> Is it?  What says that?
>
> The name itself doesn't say that.  If that's important
> then call it `ivy-rich', not `rich'.  But that just
> punts, no?  Then someone needs to find that package
> and see what it says "rich" means here.
>
> Just because some other package uses a vague name like
> that, does that mean Emacs shouldn't do better?
>
> Might as well call it `enhanced', `special', `super',
> or `wonderful'.  Does "rich" have a meaning that
> suggests something here other than "full" or "great"?

What 'ivy-rich' does is complement the candidates of 'ivy-mode' with
pertinent information.  For example, standard Ivy shows a vertical list
consisting only of buffer names, while 'ivy-rich' adds to them their
major mode and file system path, filling up the empty space.

Couched in those terms, "rich" could be replaced with something like
"detailed", "descriptive", "informative"...  Or, if you want to be
precise, prepend "vertical-" to those options.

-- 
Protesilaos Stavrou
protesilaos.com