Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion.

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> Yes, and no. What I meant is that the underlying mechanisms are very
> different.  99.99% of the time the completion candidates are the same,
> but there are objects which are not meaningful to cache, like arguments
> of the user functions, or components of the recursive structures (lists,
> environments, data.frames etc.).  In this cases AC also calls the
> process, and it's usually fast.  But in some extreme corner cases, like
> if user changed a function in an attached package, AC will still use the
> cached version.'

So, IIUC it would be perfectly OK for TAB completion to use the AC code.

>> Hmm... more consistency in the naming might be good here, indeed.
>> It's important to keep the "<package>-" prefix since I don't want to
>> consider all of this as part of Emacs's "core", but maybe we could
>> settle on "<something>-completion-at-point-function" or maybe something
>> shorter than that.
> I am a fan of the -completion postfix convention.  It's easy to match in
> apropos, anything or IDO regexp: comint-filename-completion,
> tags-completion, imenu-completion, imenu-in-same-mode-completion,
> words-in-same-buffer-commpletion etc.  It can get pretty long by itself,
> so a short postfix is better.

But I suspect it will generate false positives because it's not
specific enough.  Maybe "-completion-data"?


        Stefan