From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question about completion behavior Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 19:22:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20220309001013.gxyh2uasbuxiz6ww.ref@Ergus> <20220309001013.gxyh2uasbuxiz6ww@Ergus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7057"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ergus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 01:23:33 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nRk73-0001eK-J3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 01:23:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39410 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRk72-0006gX-IP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 19:23:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRk64-0005zX-17 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 19:22:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:8823) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRk60-0005W2-Ck for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2022 19:22:31 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2D6AE805D6; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 19:22:14 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D29EF80401; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 19:22:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1646785332; bh=e8dKHe/BRQQ2WrP0QnowUeTmQ3OVWiK/zA8EopWmmGQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=bUHEYqDnzgFeaQm7VKZKNa9bZSHMSxyPNE3mAO3SdQBB3GmoxlItpu6dnAcOcG3Hx g/BAxSG3goFwketgY3QNTD3gaxEtrJRe9CF+WjYGmJqwRqegpqf4nLcVbu1BOVeD1m U1MPU/koNLLEQKa9JoMNvUIYqMDY2qxiE9bUh+qDE+qbrc33I1pYsc73BBS1tBxANK VOopkl6+aLX3TbgYeO7+MNtk+axcqALGEZhcmSb/dOcWbtu+11uakvlz6rL+vGV4Lw 8reY6Rnw+3s8C4YEiTD4NPjHMbxcXGggT00vAJVzOD4FvtxTQVQxo4pvBeBUMraW2N T7+Qh1g5BwO2g== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.221.51]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92791120328; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 19:22:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20220309001013.gxyh2uasbuxiz6ww@Ergus> (Ergus's message of "Wed, 9 Mar 2022 01:10:13 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:286940 Archived-At: Ergus [2022-03-09 01:10:13] wrote: > In the code that hides the completions there is actually a comment about > this: > > ;; We could also decide to refresh the completions, > ;; if they're displayed (and assuming there are > ;; completions left). > > Is anyone working on this? When I wrote that code (and that comment), my main goal was to rewrite the C code into ELisp, introduce the `completion-styles` system and add `partial-completion` to the default. To maximize the chances that it be accepted, I made every effort to try and preserve the old behavior w.r.t everything else. > Was all this behavior intended or how do you propose to solve this? I think this can be changed. Patches welcome. Stefan