From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Josh Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] trunk r115058: * lisp/iswitchb.el (iswitchb-mode): Mark ob Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:32:17 -0800 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1384738379 11867 80.91.229.3 (18 Nov 2013 01:32:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 01:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Xue Fuqiao , emacs-devel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 18 02:33:03 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ViDi2-0003EA-4g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 02:33:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40868 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ViDi0-0001RV-Ku for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:33:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57584) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ViDht-0001RP-UX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:32:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ViDhp-0000ij-2U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:32:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:47241) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ViDho-0000id-S6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:32:48 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id a1so5595755wgh.0 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:32:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=WDk1e259MMdkqk50Glx17BI6qTqqmemZe+zF4zEHzOs=; b=WP7QDsbdEROtx5N2Mwwjp71B5K2Mnqt7kJEy6wBXlkM14upI5BJx1qVGr3jaQ1NbR9 gmCstjW1ohfakruI5rS8eJc4V5nWoG5cMBNMBvyHlkvoVhqKcNrQG3CD3Vyiyu7PnOa/ t+SzgwPY6MMqwU7xJpJXxVFX0a6CzDSND8OFjOnnh+dMf4wSHFN9Ax1I6u3LtkJVrcW5 QKvUYIZMdOE+fmzQi5+WTs+DkSi6tf9iUluTnO3ZVOzghn2zKOiIn/UdGAqTvZJhsK36 k/Mb7bYVr5aEwQByTAgUeNc2NnU8OtREOMflnbp4iRe/qRNcJNbBhzmJhk7IrZqACLwy F7rQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlxTBOguYnKdO0m6ygAu/AabKWnGmkM3GKYv9zaaG2flif7NtjXmW2WRjc0TyD+vD477F6N X-Received: by 10.194.250.6 with SMTP id yy6mr14855087wjc.13.1384738367639; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:32:47 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.194.24.7 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:32:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: 43wZKXInpyytWgP277up_pR4y_o X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 74.125.82.45 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:165312 Archived-At: On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> You misunderstood. It is iswitchb's obsolescence that surprises me, >> and iswitchb that those few people I mentioned prefer. > > Then, please make a bug-report explaining why they prefer iswitchb-mode > over icomplete-mode. The two are not 100% identical, but it should be > possible to configure icomplete-mode's behavior to be pretty close to > iswitchb-mode. They can do it themselves if they are so moved. As I hope I've made clear by now, my main concern is the question of whether iswitchb's successor ought to be icomplete or ido. I have put forward an argument that it should be ido based on the fact that it appears to be far and away what users prefer, and by going this route we would maximize the number of users who were satisfied with the default completion mechanism. With my argument I offered evidence, and I believe and hope that one of the many here who also frequent #emacs and keep their own logs would swiftly correct me if I have misstated the reality. If I have not, is there some countervailing argument or evidence you believe tips the scale in favor of annointing icomplete, or are you just asserting maintainer's privilege because you personally prefer icomplete?