[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fix for bug 10994 breaks ido customizations in major way

From: Le Wang
Subject: Re: fix for bug 10994 breaks ido customizations in major way
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 17:35:23 +0800

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Vitalie Spinu <address@hidden> wrote:
>  >> Le Wang <address@hidden>
>  >> on Sat, 4 May 2013 15:00:24 +0800 wrote:
>  > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Leo Liu <address@hidden> wrote:
>  >> On 2013-05-03 20:49 +0800, Le Wang wrote:
>  >> > There are a few ido customizations floating around that propertizes 
> text.
>  >> >  This will break all of them.  I don't think this fix is acceptable.
>  >>
> What do you mean by "break"?
> When propertied strings are used, they are used for a reason - to carry
> additional information.
> There are plenty of applications that might need same strings but with
> different meaning.

No there aren't.  Because this was completely broken in 24.3.1 until
the fix was checked in for 10994.

> For example ido for tag or imenu navigation, there
> might be several locations where a symbol is used/defined.

This is a good reason for including a line#, class, etc.  Why only

Your examples are contrived and not in the wild at all.  I say again,
only HEAD has the ability to handle repeated runs of strings.

BUT the cost of adding this functionality is breaking packages that
add text properties ... Packages that actually __exist__.

> Currently
> (let ((t1 (propertize "aaa" 'aaa 12))
>       (t2 (propertize "aaa" 'aaa 11)))
>   (ido-completing-read "?: " (list t1 t2 "sfd")))
> works as expected. And the above patch breaks that.

That would be a horrible UI.  Luckily AFAICT, it hasn't happened.
That's why I say there is no actual valid use-case for repeating the
same string in completions.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]