On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:01 PM Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> wrote:
>
> >> bold in completions-first-difference helps to immediately see the
> >> next character to type to narrow completions further.
> >
> > <mild bikeshedding starts>
> >
> > Yes, but some questions, Juri:
> >
> > * wouldn't any other face, say "underline", serve the same purpose?
>
> underline is less noticeable than bold, when used on a single character
> with completions-first-difference in the "basic" completion style.

> > * would you not be equally and efficiently informed of such facts if
> >   completions-common-part were _more_ prominent and
> >   completions-first-difference was _less_ prominent?
>
> In the "basic" completion style completions-first-difference
> needs to be more prominent since it's more important to indicate
> the next character to type.

I understand. But if completion-common-part is super-prominent, you get
more or less the same, right?  It's also very easy to see the "next"
character
to type.

> Other completion styles don't highlight completions-first-difference
> at all.  I'm not sure if only the "basic" completion style highlights
> completions-first-difference.

Eh.  I removed it recently, without asking anyone, waiting for
someone to complain. :-)

Are you complaining? :-)  If you are, I'll revert that bit. If you aren't
I probably should revert it too...

Anyway, I don't think it makes a lot of sense in those styles,
unless you are editing inside the completion string,
which is relatively rare.

> Is it possible to use bold for completions-first-difference only
> in the "basic" completion style, but for other completion styles
> to use bold for completions-common-part?

That would make some sense, yes.  Perhaps we just need better names
for the faces. Perhaps a new alias "completion-important-bits-for-style"
for the current completion-first-difference would do fine.  We probably
need a better name, tho... "completion-style-hint"? "completion-emphasis"?

João