Looks like I might be able to just change `ido-completions` in some minor
places to accomplish what I'm looking to do. Then if it seems legit, maybe
I can submit it as a patch to emacs. Although, that process sounds more
painful than it should be.

-Steven


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Steven Degutis <sbdegutis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Helm is way, way overkill. I tried it for months and I can't get used to
> it. It does too many things, has too many options, leaves buffers lying
> around whenever you use it. But the way ido-mode works is quite perfect.
> All except this one little visual detail that I'm thinking is probably easy
> to fix.
>
> -Steven
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Tom <adatgyujto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steven Degutis <sbdegutis <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > These ideas seem like overkill. The current technique ido-mode
>> > uses is great, it just could use a different visual
>> > representation when displayed vertically, that's all. I'm sure
>> > it can't be that hard, maybe forking ido-mode and hard-coding
>> > it would be sufficient.
>>
>> In that case it would make more sense to use Helm. Helm uses a
>> vertical display by default, so the best solution would be to
>> create some kind of a bridge between them, so that ido provides
>> the backend and Helm the frontend.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>