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 12:36:11 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87wnymda5g.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87ima5he8j.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="40309"; 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 18:37:56 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 1keiRn-000AA9-6Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:37:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60908 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1keiRm-0000cf-5J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:37:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52470) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1keiQQ-00088X-2F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:36:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:10661) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1keiQK-0004PD-Hz; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:36:21 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A24C5100257; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:36:14 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C2CF100018; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:36:13 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1605548173; bh=JddxhIs+JrBRETnwhmF0DEkcsO2ldeM6FzdPaXVgDXA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=YS4edWgbYbDpkflXICJzkr9uFw5Z/vtctNfXUPFlL74zp1yw4Pem2VQmVWzn10cuM +hogtGmdik2+98lN8ywUwXHDWk9Qv9WNMOwQe0OFYYRITmyiebUR3k62mYam/l+4OO Mbt8NrztCaVg55JbGKDmUpH05mlK5kbMqgy9KsBqfq+KNWG+AjN3q8IKdb6SbJTZOc 6+rvILjOe3mQsgwu6tTx/tYG0YP82Vz5HEFMFftvvL9SH94uAuVM00qbxwq6YIxnlz KuIjrumdkDPXPrerIVyoy5zp/6H/ORw3RaBrTkFvuVMv1BehORAkGbRqUihVQ8D8Zi baZfJMczutdJg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [157.52.9.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B31F12023D; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:36:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87ima5he8j.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (Juri Linkov's message of "Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:58:12 +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:259241 Archived-At: >> Agreed: the `annotation-function` is much too limited. >> I don't think "in addition" is right tho: the new functionality should >> aim to replace the current `annotation-function`. > Then maybe to differentiate one from another: when the string > returned from `annotation-function` has text properties then > use it to display a complete candidate, otherwise append it > as an annotation - for backward compatibility. That's a possibility, yes. Tho we could also use another property and deprecate the `annotation-function`. 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? ... Stefan