Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default

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

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:34 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
> On 07.11.2019 12:27, João Távora wrote:

> > It seems to be more than "feeling".  Have you asked yourself why the
> > whole industry seems to does it differently (i.e. with bold or some
> > other contrasting color)?
> I'm assuming that's rhetorical.

It wasn't. Assume you have asked yourself that, what answer did you
arrive at?

> The idea is that one would really need to find out why a given string is
> among the matches very rarely. Maybe once of twice, and they'll simply
> trust the completion engine after that. And for a one-off task, one
> might as well squint a little.

squinting is bad, mkay?

But it's interesting you point that out, because it allows me
to think why I want this:  one of the inherent characteristics of "flex"
is precisely that it can't be "trusted" 100%.  It makes educated guesses,
hopefully very good ones, but sometimes fails, so the user double-checks
via the highlighting.

> Vice versa, one might ask why we added this in-your-face highlighting
> why simply looks like a solid blue (or aquamarine) column in the
> Completions buffer. And we'll have to answer that, well, there exists a
> recently added non-default completion style where this highlighting is
> really useful.

No. It's totally _not_ harmful in the default style. It doesn't make the
first-difference character any harder to spot, nor the preceding text
harder to read

> BTW, speaking of backward compatibility, some of the changes in face
> placement you proposed would break company-capf's implementation of the
> 'match' action.

I can make a patch for that, if you explain what happens.  If it's the
decision where to put company's emphasis, just put it wherever
completions-emphasis is.

João