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.