What completion mechanisms are you using?

What completion mechanisms are you using?

[senny]

What I like most about Emacs, is that you can complete nearly
everything. Until now i stuck to the bundled completions like dabbrev-
expand or hippie-expand to combine them. But when i look through the
emacs-wiki there is a huge amount of scripts available to improve and
extend the completion mechanism (like company-mode, icicles,...).
Because I have no clue where to start searching for the ones I like, i
wanted to ask you what extensions you are using and how they help you
to optimize your day to day work.

Regards,
senny

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Les Harris]

senny <yves.senn@gmail.com> writes:

> Because I have no clue where to start searching for the ones I like, i
> wanted to ask you what extensions you are using and how they help you
> to optimize your day to day work.

I'm a big fan icicles. It adds completion for pretty much any minibuffer
related activity you can think of (and then some).  I still haven't come
close to really utilizing it to it's full potential (but then, with
emacs in general that is a rather normal state of affairs for me!)

Features that I use often would include:
 * Regex and Fuzzy matching.  These are great when I have a general idea
 what something I'm looking for is named but not exactly.  Also good for
 exploring possibilities within a subset of functionality.

 * Saving completion lists to act as de facto file listings for
   projects.
 
 * Using it's completion to enhance the discoverability of emacs
   commands for myself.

Icicles if sort of a kitchen sink solution but a high quality one.  If
you would like something a bit more focused perhaps look into ido-mode?

My two cents at any rate.

-- 
Do they only stand
By ignorance, is that their happy state,
The proof of their obedience and their faith?

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Samuel Wales]

Trying ido's flex matching is one of those experiences where
everything suddenly becomes an order of magnitude easier.

Hey, does the .invalid thing really deter spammers?

-- 
For personal and corporate gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists
are knowingly causing massive suffering and 25-years-early death by
grossly corrupting science.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Christian Engels]

At Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:42:17 -0800,
Les Harris wrote:
> 
> senny <yves.senn@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Because I have no clue where to start searching for the ones I like, i
> > wanted to ask you what extensions you are using and how they help you
> > to optimize your day to day work.
> 
> I'm a big fan icicles. It adds completion for pretty much any minibuffer
> related activity you can think of (and then some).  I still haven't come
> close to really utilizing it to it's full potential (but then, with
> emacs in general that is a rather normal state of affairs for me!)
> 
> Features that I use often would include:
>  * Regex and Fuzzy matching.  These are great when I have a general idea
>  what something I'm looking for is named but not exactly.  Also good for
>  exploring possibilities within a subset of functionality.
> 
>  * Saving completion lists to act as de facto file listings for
>    projects.
>  
>  * Using it's completion to enhance the discoverability of emacs
>    commands for myself.
> 
> Icicles if sort of a kitchen sink solution but a high quality one.  If
> you would like something a bit more focused perhaps look into ido-mode?
> 
> My two cents at any rate.
> 
> -- 
> Do they only stand
> By ignorance, is that their happy state,
> The proof of their obedience and their faith?


At the moment i use ido and icomplete. But icicles seems really nice for completion. The only problem i have is, that it doesn't work well with ido.
Why i want this weird setup is easy. I think ido is perfect for files with the way it shows them to me on selecting and the way you can browse through directories. For example with ido you just have to hit Backspace to go one directory up.
So has somebody a clue how i can setup icicles that it gets used for everything except the things ido uses?

Greetings
Christian Engels

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Christian Engels]

At Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:42:17 -0800,
Les Harris wrote:
> 
> senny <yves.senn@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Because I have no clue where to start searching for the ones I like, i
> > wanted to ask you what extensions you are using and how they help you
> > to optimize your day to day work.
> 
> I'm a big fan icicles. It adds completion for pretty much any minibuffer
> related activity you can think of (and then some).  I still haven't come
> close to really utilizing it to it's full potential (but then, with
> emacs in general that is a rather normal state of affairs for me!)
> 
> Features that I use often would include:
>  * Regex and Fuzzy matching.  These are great when I have a general idea
>  what something I'm looking for is named but not exactly.  Also good for
>  exploring possibilities within a subset of functionality.
> 
>  * Saving completion lists to act as de facto file listings for
>    projects.
>  
>  * Using it's completion to enhance the discoverability of emacs
>    commands for myself.
> 
> Icicles if sort of a kitchen sink solution but a high quality one.  If
> you would like something a bit more focused perhaps look into ido-mode?
> 
> My two cents at any rate.
> 
> -- 
> Do they only stand
> By ignorance, is that their happy state,
> The proof of their obedience and their faith?


At the moment i use ido and icomplete. But icicles seems really nice for completion. The only problem i have is, that it doesn't work well with ido.
Why i want this weird setup is easy. I think ido is perfect for files with the way it shows them to me on selecting and the way you can browse through directories. For example with ido you just have to hit Backspace to go one directory up.
So has somebody a clue how i can setup icicles that it gets used for everything except the things ido uses?

Greetings
Christian Engels

RE: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Drew Adams]

> > > ask you what extensions you are using and how they help you
> > > to optimize your day to day work.
> > 
> > I'm a big fan icicles. It adds completion for pretty much 
> > any minibuffer related activity you can think of (and then some).
> > I still haven't come close to really utilizing it to it's full
> > potential (but then, with emacs in general that is a rather
> > normal state of affairs for me!)
> > 
> > Features that I use often would include:
> >  * Regex and Fuzzy matching.  These are great when I have a 
> >    general idea what something I'm looking for is named but not
> >    exactly. Also good for exploring possibilities within a
> >    subset of functionality.
> > 
> >  * Saving completion lists to act as de facto file listings for
> >    projects.
> >  
> >  * Using it's completion to enhance the discoverability of emacs
> >    commands for myself.
> 
> At the moment i use ido and icomplete. But icicles seems 
> really nice for completion. The only problem i have is, that 
> it doesn't work well with ido.

Icicles and Ido are incompatible. They use the minibuffer in different ways.
Icicles stays closer to the vanilla Emacs behavior, extending it by using
additional keys.

> Why i want this weird setup is easy. I think ido is perfect 
> for files with the way it shows them to me on selecting and 
> the way you can browse through directories.

You would need to be more specific for me to be helpful about this wrt Icicles.
What do you mean by "shows them to me on selecting"?

If you mean that the file is visited as soon as you type enough characters to
get a match, then you can get similar behavior with Icicles (see links below).

> For example with ido you just have to hit Backspace to go one
> directory up.

Icicles is like vanilla Emacs wrt editing in the minibuffer: Backspace
just back-spaces, etc. To go up a directory, you need to hit 3 keys,
`M-k ..', instead of one. That's the same as vanilla Emacs - Icicles justs adds
a `M-k' binding to clear the minibuffer.

IOW, Icicles does not have separate editing and command modes in the minibuffer.
Like vanilla Emacs, Icicles minibuffer interaction is not modal. Backspace is
always an editing key.

You could of course bind some key in the minibuffer keymaps to go up a
directory.

> So has somebody a clue how i can setup icicles that it gets 
> used for everything except the things ido uses?

As I said, their use of the minibuffer conflicts. This makes them incompatible -
each tries to control the minibuffer UI. Icicles generally plays along with
vanilla Emacs minibuffer bindings; Ido does not.

That said, there are some Icicles options you can use to make some of the
behavior more Ido-like. See:
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_Alternative_Libraries and
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_S-RET

But overall, do not look to reproducing the Ido UI in Icicles. That's a bit like
trying to reproduce vi-like behavior in Emacs: You can do it to some extent, but
an Ido or VI diehard will likely be disappointed with the compromise.

On the other hand, Icicles is compatible with Iswitchb, which is similar to Ido
for buffer-switching.

BTW, someone mentioned Ido's "flex" matching. That is also available with
Icicles (I call it "scatter" matching). You can switch matching methods at any
time by hitting `C-(' or `M-(' in the minibuffer:

* `C-(' cycles between fuzzy and prefix completion (for TAB)
* `M-(' cycles between regexp/substring, scatter (flex), and
  Levenshtein completion (for S-TAB)

HTH.

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Christian Engels]

At Sun, 1 Feb 2009 08:09:14 -0800,
Drew Adams wrote:
> 
> > > > ask you what extensions you are using and how they help you
> > > > to optimize your day to day work.
> > > 
> > > I'm a big fan icicles. It adds completion for pretty much 
> > > any minibuffer related activity you can think of (and then some).
> > > I still haven't come close to really utilizing it to it's full
> > > potential (but then, with emacs in general that is a rather
> > > normal state of affairs for me!)
> > > 
> > > Features that I use often would include:
> > >  * Regex and Fuzzy matching.  These are great when I have a 
> > >    general idea what something I'm looking for is named but not
> > >    exactly. Also good for exploring possibilities within a
> > >    subset of functionality.
> > > 
> > >  * Saving completion lists to act as de facto file listings for
> > >    projects.
> > >  
> > >  * Using it's completion to enhance the discoverability of emacs
> > >    commands for myself.
> > 
> > At the moment i use ido and icomplete. But icicles seems 
> > really nice for completion. The only problem i have is, that 
> > it doesn't work well with ido.
> 
> Icicles and Ido are incompatible. They use the minibuffer in different ways.
> Icicles stays closer to the vanilla Emacs behavior, extending it by using
> additional keys.
> 
> > Why i want this weird setup is easy. I think ido is perfect 
> > for files with the way it shows them to me on selecting and 
> > the way you can browse through directories.
> 
> You would need to be more specific for me to be helpful about this wrt Icicles.
> What do you mean by "shows them to me on selecting"?
> 
> If you mean that the file is visited as soon as you type enough characters to
> get a match, then you can get similar behavior with Icicles (see links below).

No, what i mean is the following behaviour. If i type C-x C-f i get right away a 
list of possible matches in the minibuffer. This get more refined if i add letters.
For example if i am in a directory with the files aa.txt aac.txt b.txt after ido-find-file
i get the following line in the minibuffer:
find file: ~/{aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
If i now type a it looks like:
find file: ~/a[a]{aa.txt | aac.txt}
If i now hit Return i get aa.txt and if i hit right cursor it changes to
find file: ~/{aac.txt | b.txt | aa.txt}.

I hope this gets clearer.


> > For example with ido you just have to hit Backspace to go one
> > directory up.
> 
> Icicles is like vanilla Emacs wrt editing in the minibuffer: Backspace
> just back-spaces, etc. To go up a directory, you need to hit 3 keys,
> `M-k ..', instead of one. That's the same as vanilla Emacs - Icicles justs adds
> a `M-k' binding to clear the minibuffer.
> 
> IOW, Icicles does not have separate editing and command modes in the minibuffer.
> Like vanilla Emacs, Icicles minibuffer interaction is not modal. Backspace is
> always an editing key.
> 
> You could of course bind some key in the minibuffer keymaps to go up a
> directory.

I didn't know that, thanks for the advice but binding a key will not really help.
Again an example of ido's behaviour:
find file: a{ aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
If i now hit Backspace i get
find file: /tmp/{ aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
If i now hit backspace again i get
find file: /{ $list of files}

Is this possible with a keybinding?

> > So has somebody a clue how i can setup icicles that it gets 
> > used for everything except the things ido uses?
> 
> As I said, their use of the minibuffer conflicts. This makes them incompatible -
> each tries to control the minibuffer UI. Icicles generally plays along with
> vanilla Emacs minibuffer bindings; Ido does not.
> 
> That said, there are some Icicles options you can use to make some of the
> behavior more Ido-like. See:
> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_Alternative_Libraries and
> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_S-RET
> 
> But overall, do not look to reproducing the Ido UI in Icicles. That's a bit like
> trying to reproduce vi-like behavior in Emacs: You can do it to some extent, but
> an Ido or VI diehard will likely be disappointed with the compromise.
> 
> On the other hand, Icicles is compatible with Iswitchb, which is similar to Ido
> for buffer-switching.
> 
> BTW, someone mentioned Ido's "flex" matching. That is also available with
> Icicles (I call it "scatter" matching). You can switch matching methods at any
> time by hitting `C-(' or `M-(' in the minibuffer:
> 
> * `C-(' cycles between fuzzy and prefix completion (for TAB)
> * `M-(' cycles between regexp/substring, scatter (flex), and
>   Levenshtein completion (for S-TAB)
> 
> HTH.

The above features of ido i mentioned are basically the daily stuff i use and really 
missed when i tried icicles for some minutes.

Greetings
Christian Engels

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Samuel Wales]

I can't speak for the poster, but it seems like his q is similar to
mine a while back.

ido has a nearly perfect io for files and buffers (and lots of things
in org mode).  But it doesn't by default work with M-x (though there
is code for that) and the rare other things.

Therefore, since icicles seems so customizable, it's natural to wonder
whether you can easily make it emulate ido, or, if not, work only with
things that ido does not.  It sounds like the answers are "don't
bother to try because you'll just get frustrated" and "no".

Confirm?

Also, just out of curiosity (I won't be using icicles if it can't be
made to work like ido :)) does the completions buffer work for people
who set pop-up-windows to nil?

Thanks.

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 13:58, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>> > > > > ask you what extensions you are using and how they help you
>> > > > > to optimize your day to day work.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm a big fan icicles. It adds completion for pretty much
>> > > > any minibuffer related activity you can think of (and
>> > > > then some).
>> > > >
>> > > > I still haven't come close to really utilizing it to it's full
>> > > > potential (but then, with emacs in general that is a rather
>> > > > normal state of affairs for me!)
>> > > >
>> > > > Features that I use often would include:
>> > > >  * Regex and Fuzzy matching.  These are great when I have a
>> > > >    general idea what something I'm looking for is named but not
>> > > >    exactly. Also good for exploring possibilities within a
>> > > >    subset of functionality.
>> > > >
>> > > >  * Saving completion lists to act as de facto file listings for
>> > > >    projects.
>> > > >
>> > > >  * Using it's completion to enhance the discoverability of emacs
>> > > >    commands for myself.
>> > >
>> > > At the moment i use ido and icomplete. But icicles seems
>> > > really nice for completion. The only problem i have is, that
>> > > it doesn't work well with ido.
>> >
>> > Icicles and Ido are incompatible. They use the minibuffer
>> > in different ways. Icicles stays closer to the vanilla Emacs
>> > behavior, extending it by using additional keys.
>> >
>> > > Why i want this weird setup is easy. I think ido is perfect
>> > > for files with the way it shows them to me on selecting and
>> > > the way you can browse through directories.
>> >
>> > You would need to be more specific for me to be helpful
>> > about this wrt Icicles. What do you mean by "shows them to me
>> > on selecting"?
>> >
>> > If you mean that the file is visited as soon as you type
>> > enough characters to get a match, then you can get similar
>> > behavior with Icicles (see links below).
>>
>> No, what i mean is the following behaviour. If i type C-x C-f
>> i get right away a list of possible matches in the minibuffer.
>
> OK, so you want to see the possibile completions immediately.
>
> To get that behavior with Icicles, customize option
> `icicle-show-Completions-initially-flag' to t. But in Icicles, like in vanilla
> Emacs, the candidates are shown in buffer *Completions*, not in the minibuffer.
> If you set the option to a non-nil, non-t value, then *Completions* is not
> displayed until you type or delete some input; otherwise, non-nil shows the
> candidates immediately.
>
> I know that some Icicles users prefer the show-initially behavior, but most do
> not. It's easy for an Icicles user to try the different behaviors in various
> contexts, to see which s?he prefers overall.
>
> One thing to keep in mind: Icicles completion is available in *every*
> minibuffer-completion context, not just for file and buffer names. What might
> seem like a good idea at first for file names or buffer names is not necessarily
> a great idea for other contexts also.
>
> Rather than customizing `icicle-show-Completions-initially-flag' to non-nil, it
> is more typical, for a particular context in which initial display of candidates
> makes sense, to temporarily bind the option to non-nil. That can be done to make
> use of *Completions* as a menu, for instance. (A special case is a
> multiple-choice menu, where you can choose more than one item or choose an item
> any number of times.)
>
>> This get more refined if i add letters.
>
> Such incremental completion is also standard behavior for Icicles. But you can
> toggle it at any time, using `C-#' in the minibuffer. It can be time-consuming
> or annoying in some contexts (e.g. zillions of candidates, such as all of the
> files in your file system).
>
> Besides toggling this, you can customize its behavior, using options
> `icicle-incremental-completion-flag', `icicle-incremental-completion-delay' and
> `icicle-incremental-completion-threshold'.
>
>> For example if i am in a directory with the files aa.txt aac.txt b.txt
>> after ido-find-file i get the following line in the minibuffer:
>> find file: ~/{aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
>> If i now type a it looks like:
>> find file: ~/a[a]{aa.txt | aac.txt}
>> If i now hit Return i get aa.txt and if i hit right cursor it changes to
>> find file: ~/{aac.txt | b.txt | aa.txt}.
>
> Similarly, in Icicles.
>
> But Icicles uses regexp matching for this, by default. AFAIK, Ido uses substring
> matching here, which is a proper subset of regexp matching.
>
> If you want only substring matching in Icicles, you can customize option
> `icicle-regexp-quote-flag' to non-nil. That escapes any regexp special
> characters in your input. Or you can just use `C-`' in the minibuffer at any
> time, to toggle this option (hence toggle substring/regexp completion).
>
>> I hope this gets clearer.
>>
>> > > For example with ido you just have to hit Backspace to go one
>> > > directory up.
>> >
>> > Icicles is like vanilla Emacs wrt editing in the minibuffer:
>> > Backspace just back-spaces, etc. To go up a directory, you
>> > need to hit 3 keys, `M-k ..', instead of one. That's the same
>> > as vanilla Emacs - Icicles justs adds a `M-k' binding to clear
>> > the minibuffer.
>> >
>> > IOW, Icicles does not have separate editing and command
>> > modes in the minibuffer. Like vanilla Emacs, Icicles minibuffer
>> > interaction is not modal. Backspace is always an editing key.
>> >
>> > You could of course bind some key in the minibuffer keymaps
>> > to go up a directory.
>>
>> I didn't know that, thanks for the advice but binding a key
>> will not really help.
>> Again an example of ido's behaviour:
>> find file: a{ aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
>> If i now hit Backspace i get
>> find file: /tmp/{ aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
>> If i now hit backspace again i get
>> find file: /{ $list of files}
>>
>> Is this possible with a keybinding?
>
> That's already the same in Icicles - no need to change any key bindings. That's
> just incremental completion - see above.
>
> That simply shows the completion candidates that correspond to whatever is
> currently in the minibuffer. If the minibuffer has `/tmp/' as content, then the
> candidates are the files in directory `/tmp/'.
>
> Even vanilla Emacs works this way. But vanilla Emacs doesn't have incremental
> completion - you must hit TAB to see the completions of the new (edited)
> minibuffer input. (But as I mentioned, that's not always a drawback - sometimes
> it's an advantage to complete only on demand. It depends on the context.)
>
>> > > So has somebody a clue how i can setup icicles that it gets
>> > > used for everything except the things ido uses?
>> >
>> > As I said, their use of the minibuffer conflicts. This makes
>> > them incompatible - each tries to control the minibuffer UI.
>> > Icicles generally plays along with vanilla Emacs minibuffer
>> > bindings; Ido does not.
>> >
>> > That said, there are some Icicles options you can use to
>> > make some of the behavior more Ido-like. See:
>> > http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_Alternative_Libraries and
>> > http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_S-RET
>> >
>> > But overall, do not look to reproducing the Ido UI in Icicles.
>> > That's a bit like trying to reproduce vi-like behavior in Emacs:
>> > You can do it to some extent, but an Ido or VI diehard will
>> > likely be disappointed with the compromise.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, Icicles is compatible with Iswitchb,
>> > which is similar to Ido for buffer-switching.
>> >
>> > BTW, someone mentioned Ido's "flex" matching. That is also
>> > available with Icicles (I call it "scatter" matching).
>> > You can switch matching methods at any time by hitting
>> > `C-(' or `M-(' in the minibuffer:
>> >
>> > * `C-(' cycles between fuzzy and prefix completion (for TAB)
>> > * `M-(' cycles between regexp/substring, scatter (flex), and
>> >   Levenshtein completion (for S-TAB)
>> >
>> > HTH.
>>
>> The above features of ido i mentioned are basically the daily
>> stuff i use and really missed when i tried icicles for some minutes.
>
> IIUC, the things you mentioned are available in Icicles as well.
>
> I would say, however, that if you are happy with Ido (or with vanilla Emacs, for
> that matter), then why change? I meant it when I said that it's probably a
> mistake to look for a reproduction of Ido behavior in Icicles; you're bound to
> be disappointed at some point.
>
> We each have our own preferences and habits. The old saying that "if all you
> have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail" is apt here. If someone is
> quite used to a hammer (whether that's Ido or vanilla Emacs or Icicles), then,
> when trying out a different tool, there is often a tendency to find it lacking
> in hammerness. ;-) Each tool has its advantages - no sense using a wrench only
> to pound on things. Instead, find out how a wrench might be useful to you (or
> not).
>
> People are different. It's a good thing that there are multiple UIs available to
> choose from and experiment with. There is no single best answer.
>
> Just wanted to offer some general clarification, in case it helps someone.
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
For personal and corporate gain, myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists
are knowingly causing massive suffering and 25-years-early death by
grossly corrupting science.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

RE: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Drew Adams]

> I can't speak for the poster, but it seems like his q is similar to
> mine a while back.

Then the answer I gave should serve for you as well. You quoted the answer in
its entirety (not needed), but did you read it?

> ido has a nearly perfect io for files and buffers (and lots of things
> in org mode).  But it doesn't by default work with M-x (though there
> is code for that) and the rare other things.

FWIW, the other things are not rare. Completion is used throughout Emacs, not
just for `M-x', `C-x b', and `C-x C-f'.

If you don't believe me, just `grep' for `completing-read' in the `lisp'
directory and its subdirectories (*.el */*.el). In Emacs 22.3, that's over 500
calls, hardly any of which involve buffers. Do the same for `read-file-name' -
about half that many hits.

This doesn't imply much about relative usage, but it is an indication that such
"other things" are not rare in Emacs.

(This is the hammer => nail speaking again, IMO.)
 
> Therefore, since icicles seems so customizable, it's natural to wonder
> whether you can easily make it emulate ido, or, if not, work only with
> things that ido does not.  It sounds like the answers are "don't
> bother to try because you'll just get frustrated" and "no". Confirm?

I already answered this clearly and in detail.

Summary:

Icicles is not Ido.  It is not trying to be Ido.
The Icicles UI is intentionally different from the Ido UI.
If you want the Ido UI, use Ido.

If you want Icicles, you can still get similar features and behavior as in Ido.
If you want exactly the Ido behavior for files and buffers, please use Ido.

> Also, just out of curiosity (I won't be using icicles if it can't be
> made to work like ido :)) does the completions buffer work for people
> who set pop-up-windows to nil?

Yes.

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Samuel Wales]

Yes, I read it before posting.  I was trying to interpret your answer
in terms of the poster's question.  I was not persuaded that my
guesses at your meaning were correct.  They were.

RE: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Drew Adams]

> > Again an example of ido's behaviour:
> > find file: a{ aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
> > If i now hit Backspace i get
> > find file: /tmp/{ aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
> > If i now hit backspace again i get
> > find file: /{ $list of files}
> > 
> > Is this possible with a keybinding?
> 
> That's already the same in Icicles - no need to change any 
> key bindings. That's just incremental completion - see above.
> 
> That simply shows the completion candidates that correspond 
> to whatever is currently in the minibuffer. If the minibuffer
> has `/tmp/' as content, then the candidates are the files in
> directory `/tmp/'.

I should have also mentioned that `C-backspace' removes the last directory
component (and any partial file name) from your minibuffer input, then
recompletes.

So either of these removes everything except /titi/foo/ and then shows the
completions for /titi/foo/:

 File or directory: /titi/foo/bar/toto  C-backspace
 Find or directory: /titi/foo/bar/  C-backspace

The main answer here is still that this is just incremental completion, but yes,
there is a one-key equivalent to Ido's `backspace' in Icicles, for file-name
completion. (`backspace' itself is used for editing, as I mentioned).

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Samuel Wales]

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 16:33, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
> If you don't believe me, just `grep' for `completing-read' in the `lisp'

Pretend I wrote "more rarely used by myself" instead of "rare".  It
doesn't matter how you interpret it.  The point was only that there
are some things that ido does not do by default.  Hence the desire to
work only on those things that ido does not work for.  Yes, I know the
answer is "not possible".

Re: What completion mechanisms are you using?

[Richard Riley]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> > Again an example of ido's behaviour:
>> > find file: a{ aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
>> > If i now hit Backspace i get
>> > find file: /tmp/{ aa.txt | aac.txt | b.txt}
>> > If i now hit backspace again i get
>> > find file: /{ $list of files}
>> > 
>> > Is this possible with a keybinding?
>> 
>> That's already the same in Icicles - no need to change any 
>> key bindings. That's just incremental completion - see above.
>> 
>> That simply shows the completion candidates that correspond 
>> to whatever is currently in the minibuffer. If the minibuffer
>> has `/tmp/' as content, then the candidates are the files in
>> directory `/tmp/'.
>
> I should have also mentioned that `C-backspace' removes the last directory
> component (and any partial file name) from your minibuffer input, then
> recompletes.
>
> So either of these removes everything except /titi/foo/ and then shows the
> completions for /titi/foo/:
>
>  File or directory: /titi/foo/bar/toto  C-backspace
>  Find or directory: /titi/foo/bar/  C-backspace
>
> The main answer here is still that this is just incremental completion, but yes,
> there is a one-key equivalent to Ido's `backspace' in Icicles, for file-name
> completion. (`backspace' itself is used for editing, as I mentioned).
>
>

I must admit that I returned to IDO after a while since my usage of
icicles was insufficient for me to remember how to use it. It just
seemed a tad too comprehensive and complicated - I got confused too many
times with the plethora of options. I can see how someone living in
Emacs would love it, but at the time it frightened me off. Possibly now
is the time to return to it.

As it is my completion/ido set up works well for me and is as simple as:

,----
| (setq completion-ignore-case t)
| (require 'ido)
| 
| (ido-mode 1)
| (ido-everywhere 1)
| 
| (setf ido-confirm-unique-completion t)
| (setf ido-enable-flex-matching t)
| (ido-mode 'buffer)
| 
| (ffap-bindings)
`----



-- 
 important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday.  ~Dennis Gabor, Innovations:  Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970