From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: new-flex-completion-style Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:36:16 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20190202232827.27331.87300@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190202232828.4AE452159A@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87lg2mynrg.fsf@gmail.com> <871s4czm5n.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="180361"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 14 14:49:45 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1guHOa-000knL-Ug for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 14:49:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48881 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1guHOZ-0001sa-J7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:49:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60369) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1guHNu-00010d-Rz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:49:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1guHBi-0000Da-T1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:36:28 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:58126) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1guHBe-00009J-4g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:36:22 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x1EDaGX5002901; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:36:17 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id C87776A325; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:36:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:13:30 +0000") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6483=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6483> : inlines <7017> : streams <1813015> : uri <2796217> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:233312 Archived-At: > I don't think it's odd. I call the former "scattered match" > and the latter a "tighter match". Don't you find it odd that "foo" gives a better score to "fotttttttttttttttto" than to "foto" ? [ Given them the same score sounds acceptable, tho. ] Stefan