Re: on helm substantial differences

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

>> Before knowing what's the best approach, I think we should clearly
>> decide what would be the "ideal" new API.  E.g. should it return "any
>> string" and then it'd be up to the infrastructure code to store
>> side-info about what is the corresponding candidate's actual text?
>> Or should it instead return a string with additional text-properties
>> explaining which parts are annotations and which part is the actual
>> candidate's text?  Or should it return a list of strings? ...
> An additional question is at what stage to add faces like
> 'completions-common-part'?  Currently annotations are appended
> after all commonality highlighting is done.  But with returning
> a completion string, I guess such faces should be added
> on the returned string at the last stage.

The way faces like `completions-common-part` are applied is sometimes
problematic, indeed, but in this particular case I don't see what's
problematic about it: (as long as the matching is done on the
un-annotated candidates) I can't see why you're prefer to apply faces
like `completions-common-part` after adding annotations rather
than before.


        Stefan