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: on helm substantial differences Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:54:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87wnymda5g.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87ima5he8j.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87ft593ume.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18024"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: spacibba@aol.com, Jean Louis , andreyk.mad@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at, Gregory Heytings , Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 16 22:55:23 2020 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 1kemT4-0004Vt-CW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:55:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59058 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kemT3-0005jC-Ed for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:55:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34228) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kemSS-0005D6-3S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:54:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:21191) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kemSP-0002nn-Pq; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:54:43 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 198F44410FF; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:54:40 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 859D34410F5; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:54:38 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1605563678; bh=GQibCEKWLCBIRkryRam5bQcT6AG/WrCqBbmsz2HxkD8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JVZhfL6JUZxqO4fwGUk8eQ9dLfhHsoDseNgM1PHernNBV5ydroBstHrELXMaBSjV1 HaF4EVKLZHhiCBOCIJC3GgvUI9xnj8FnCoEhfH10a9icLqhCNJgceuoThx/hIknmvm fMrmg2y/pKKl+LNTy/k3DrMQN5fmX+kE8HlbJL1LEWdJSAiarsx6yZeYR9TS2Iy0tO xaDuENCYxx5Y8XkqT8jzm6ttYPRsSig80mvKoTqhRw5D3iU55NU5wGjy/C/T6Fdy89 A2xPMlcwpo4z7B+X8hdGZvEVG1Ya6/n53KoFhZKK3NFs/tOKM/lW9ZOIXWMNb/LtOi WxMk6ym+hw5Xw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.9.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D1051201E7; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:54:38 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87ft593ume.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (Juri Linkov's message of "Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:38:17 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/16 12:36:14 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:259264 Archived-At: >> 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