From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs completion matches selection UI Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:10:18 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87fvqtg02v.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <877gc5fm30.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87k3g47m7b.fsf@yandex.ru> <528B6F11.7070607@yandex.ru> <87y54ke8v3.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87li0kdrsz.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87d2lveu6x.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <8761rndkps.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1384974645 7128 80.91.229.3 (20 Nov 2013 19:10:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:10:45 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 20 20:10:50 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VjDAh-0004xZ-Ca for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:10:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56498 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjDAg-00042k-Jk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:10:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59242) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjDAR-00042N-8E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:10:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjDAJ-0004Tk-Ep for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:10:27 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:44397) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VjDAJ-0004Tf-AO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:10:19 -0500 Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id rAKJAI8b018141; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:10:18 -0500 Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 62DD9B5162; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:10:18 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <8761rndkps.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:52:31 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4768=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9362 : core <4768> : inlines <244> : streams <1077192> : uri <1601011> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:165455 Archived-At: >>> That, and to also highlight the portion of the selected entry that >>> matches if the match is partial. SM> Hmm... don't we do that already? > Not from in-buffer completion AFAICT. Yes from minibuffer completion. I see the same highlighting for in-buffer completion as for minibuffer completion. So please make a bug-report when you see the problem. It's probably an in-buffer completion which still uses ad-hoc code rather than relying on the completion-at-point infrastructure. > After thinking about it, I agree with Josh. Proposal: > 1) in minibuffer completion: > `right' or `C-f' at minibuffer point-max enters completion candidates > buffer (where then `up' and `down' are remapped, we have the user captive) > `left' in the completion candidates buffer goes back to the minibuffer > 2) in-buffer completion: > enter completion candidates buffer immediately (where then `up' and > `down' are remapped, we have the user captive). Make it easy to get out > and back to the original buffer. Maybe "enter immediately" is also an option for the minibuffer case. I agree that C-f at EOL in the minibuffer is a "safe" choice, but I don't think that hijacking `up' and `down' would be problematic either, because we'd only hijack them after displaying *Completions*, and I expect users tend to rely on the history only *before* displaying the *Completions*, but not so much afterwards. Stefan