Re: [PATCH] (icomplete-vertical-mode): Add support for affixations and, annotations

["João Távora" <joaotavora@gmail.com>]

Daniel Mendler <mail@daniel-mendler.de> writes:

> On 5/28/21 1:41 PM, João Távora wrote:
>>> There should be a possibility for the UI to request all annotations and
>>> then it can display the fields it supports.
>> 
>> Why would the UI request annotations for fields it _doesn't_ support?
>> In that case I have to side with Dmitry, who says it's a waste of
>> processing.  Why would Icomplete request 'doc-buffer', which is
>> potentially slow and needs a network request in some backend, if it
>> doesn't need to show it, or even know how to show it?
>
> I would like the backend to have the ability to define arbitrary fields
> which are strings and can be printed by the frontend for example in a
> table. There is a difference between supporting specific fields or
> specific field types. I would like to have the ability for the frontend
> to specify arbitrary fields of field type string. Then a frontend can
> display those in a tablist for example.

OK, I think understand and I already addressed this.

The frontend/backend protocol being discussed doesn't preclude your
intentions, in any way, I think As I said, make a "marginalia" field,
specified to take the value of a list of strings.  But then you have to
convince frontends to support it.  Icomplete supports 'prefix and
'suffix right now, make a patch to support 'marginalia.  We'll figure
out the relatively priority if a backend wants to return both
'marginalia and 'prefix.

> The "waste of processing" argument by Dmitry is okay - I am not against
> a way to limit the number of returned fields. 

It's more than just "okay": it's pretty fundamental. I don't think it's
a question of limiting the number of returned fields, if the frontend is
unlucky one of those fields may take ages to calculate based on the
processing needed (many backends operate through networks or processes
to request information about completions).

> What about taking a look then? Convincing the frontends on a
> case-by-case basis is not a workable solution. You are the good example
> here, your answer is "I don't know Marginalia", so how are you supposed
> to be convinced?

Heh, :-) I think it is rather you who have to state the relevance of
that item to this discussion.  There are lots of packages out there.
More than "what does it do" we want to know how it is positively or
adversely impacted by the decisions taken here, if at all.

João