[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Completions in Semantic
From: |
Lluis |
Subject: |
Re: Completions in Semantic |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:21:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
Sorry for the delay and the scarce response... too much work.
El Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:12:09PM -0400, Stefan Monnier ens deleit� amb les
seg�ents paraules:
> > I don't know about the features of current code, but I miss some
> > features on some (if not all) the completion interfaces I've tested.
> > So here's a list of (my) desired features (all of which should be
> > configurable by the user):
>
> Sounds interesting, but I must be missing some context because there's
> a lot of references I don't understand. Could you expand on them?
Sure.
> > - symbol name
> > Of course, this is what already provides every completion UI
>
> No idea what you're talking about here.
>
> > - extra information
> > This can be filled ub with symbol "metadata". Which metadata
> > appears on the completion UI should be configurable by the user:
> > - return type
> > - arguments (type and/or name)
> > - definition location (aka file)
> > - short documentation
> > - long documentation
> > All this metadata should be located anywhere around the symbol name
> > and/or the minibuffer (e.g., I think company-mode shows short
> > documentation on minibuffer, until user presses F1, when full
> > documentation is shown. Some metadata might be shown in the
> > minibuffer after completion selection (e.g., prototype).
>
> Oh... wait, are you talking specifically about completion in code
> buffers, so "symbol name" above referred to the ability to complete an
> identifier?
That's right.
> As for this "extra info", I see what you mean, but usually completion
> involves several potential candidates, so listing them all plus all
> their info would take way too much space in general (if not, then
> something like completion-annotate-function should work).
What I described is similar to `completion-annotate-function', but more
flexible (prefixed in the symbol/identifier, postfixed; some in overlay, some in
minibuffer, etc).
> So usually this extra info is provided outside of the completion functionality
> (e.g. via eldoc-mode or something similar). But, yes, I'd like to extend the
> *Completions* buffer so that you could ask for more info (either on all
> entries, or just on one at a time).
The key here is that completions do not necessarily have to go (only) into the
*Completions* buffer.
> > - result narrowing
> > A-la company-mode.
>
> No idea to what this is referring.
Company-mode provides a binding that, given the current table of possible
completions, the user can narrow it through various mechanisms (e.g., regexps).
> > - argument placeholders So that argument type and/or name is shown as
> > placeholders, such that the user simply TABs (or whatever) to fill-in
> > the blanks.
>
> Idem. Unless you mean something like skeletons/templates, but then
> I fail to see the connection with completion.
Completing a symbol triggers an arbitrary function, which could, for example:
- show symbol definition
- show short and/or extended documentation for symbol
- insert skeleton/template-like symbol definition (such that user simply
tabs to sellect next argument placeholder, which initially contains
argument name and/or type).
This could be achieved if completions where "complex objects", so each could
describe what/where to show on the specific current completion UI, a "hover"
callback (e.g. show short doc or symbol signature on minibuffer), and a
selection callback (e.g., same possibilities as hover, plus the skeleton thing).
Read you,
Lluis
--
"And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn
something new, the whole world becomes that much richer."
-- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom
Tollbooth
- Re: Completions in Semantic, (continued)
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/19
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/10/20
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Lluis, 2009/10/21
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/10/21
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Lluis, 2009/10/21
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/10/21
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/22
- Re: Completions in Semantic,
Lluis <=
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/27
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/10/27
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/27
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Lluis, 2009/10/29
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/31
- Re: Completions in Semantic, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/22
Re: Completions in Semantic, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/10/19