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: icomplete-mode vs. iswitchb Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:18 -0800 Message-ID: References: <871u1iuuel.fsf@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1386866337 8064 80.91.229.3 (12 Dec 2013 16:38:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:38:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stephen Eglen , emacs-devel To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 12 17:39:02 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 1Vr9Hx-0003oU-QW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:39:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37493 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vr9Hx-0007t8-FI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:39:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56777) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vr9Hq-0007sx-PK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:38:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vr9Hl-0001su-LO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:38:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:56244) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vr9Hl-0001sp-FD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:38:49 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z2so2767471wiv.0 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:48 -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=1tNxlmV84ieHUIs0IWHKeCPzpOZzOxO3BlEePtPiyYo=; b=TwlGM0wlYxYuF0AeQ4GB0yk/8V1XDOhLEnUYZRT/44yFNhCzpN9yRKcC55tYwNNlSv +0lt4E5FHbIDCo8otFCABEyrz8tPQkx2tCKXyLj5OiRssvBimUPg+sogdvzi8DTneqo6 X5/QZEuAJHKdo6vA6yR9gip2fy6dt7kew6ET59Y8Jv408mLl2HBmi5trgKu7knLfoE5p NtroQ+VXETB6D/2tegBn6cCPQbjfCl457prpuWxiXFlFrkNyF9kxELagaGxBzJuFklaL VdR/kDHbrqo4E8DE1Hq1xYYTgo93SocKmcDYmeDsVJHbJHpA79VLT0BAYYnuDYR+LfMW JoiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmuxmEuu0k9RUVXS1Ip2lEKDl2ZfZ85tFK0AqpnWWBw67p4gdpnticfFJtORrdnoLw4XWdF X-Received: by 10.194.6.161 with SMTP id c1mr67083wja.89.1386866328634; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:48 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.194.24.7 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <871u1iuuel.fsf@yandex.ru> X-Google-Sender-Auth: UK0vKmwetYxIdZGBvs9ttRsBiUU X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.212.179 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:166336 Archived-At: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > Stephen Eglen writes: > >> Well, I don't recall many complaints about ido vs iswitchb -- most >> people were happy to use one or the other. Probably more people use >> ido, as it offers more features. But I have just tested this: >> >> (setq ido-mode 'buffer) >> (ido-mode 1) > > Setting aside the fact that it doesn't do what you intended (ido-mode > ends up set to `both', see this variable's docstring for details), if it > did, the users would end up with less functionality than if they use > icomplete-mode, which provides completion suggestions in all cases where > Emacs knows how to complete - not only buffers, but files, functions, > variables, etc. I'm afraid I don't understand. Is the argument that ido is too featureful for iswitchb users, as Stefan has written[0]: We can't tell iswitchb users that ido makes iswitchb obsolete, since ido does a lot more and maybe they don't want all that extra functionality (and I'm not sure to what extend ido can be configured to behave like iswitchb does). I assume that if they're still using iswitchb by now, it's because they indeed don't want ido. or that Stephen's configuration snippet makes ido less featureful than icomplete, the package to which iswitchb users are being forcibly migrated, as you wrote above? If there is some coherent articulable standard being applied that is consistent with both of these arguments I don't see it. Why is uncertainty about whether ido could be configured to behave like iswitchb sufficient to disqualify ido out of hand without even the pretense of investigating, whereas given similar uncertainty about whether icomplete could be so configured the assumption is "it should be possible to configure icomplete-mode's behavior to be pretty close to iswitchb-mode"[1]? [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-11/msg00545.html [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-11/msg00529.html