Re: Updating *Completions* as you type

[Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1607 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:10 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
> > Cc: sbaugh@catern.com,  sbaugh@janestreet.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 09:11:24 +0200
> >
> > >> >>    :type '(choice (const :tag "No sorting" nil)
> > >> >>                   (const :tag "Alphabetical sorting" alphabetical)
> > >> >> +                 (const :tag "Historical sorting" historical)
> > >> >                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >> > "Chronological sorting"
> > >>
> > >> Chronological sorting is how a list of buffers sorted by recency.
> > >> Historical sorting is how items in history are sorted by input.
> > >
> > > Aren't they the same order?  If not, why not?
> >
> > "Chronological" is more wide and thus more ambiguous and confusing for
> users.
>
> Sorry, I still don't think I follow.  Could you perhaps elaborate
> about how "chronological" is more wide?
>
> My problem with "history order" or "historical order" is that it could
> be confusing, since we are talking about input history.  So we in fact
> saying something like "sort history in history order".


Oh, no, this is about sorting completion candidates, not history. The
history is still in chronological order always, it's not affected by this
setting. The setting just determines whether completion candidates are
sorted alphabetically or to match the history.

So it's "sort completions in history order".

I'd like to
> avoid using the same word twice in two different meanings, as that is
> bound to confuse someone.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2974 bytes --]