Re: icomplete-mode vs. iswitchb

[Stephen Eglen]

> That's fine, but the reason why we've had iswitchb until now is because
> apparently IDO was not a replacement, but rather another feature which
> took iswtchb's and then added a host of other things.

I disagree -- to most iswitchb/ido users, I am sure they regard ido as a
replacement for iswitchb; as I show below you can easily get iswitchb
behaviour with it.

>
> And this situation hasn't changed, so no, AFAIK, ido is not
> a replacement for iswitchb.
>
> To put it some other way: where were you all in the last 10 years or so
> that we've had iswitchb and ido, without complaining that we should mark
> iswitchb as obsolete and replace it with ido?

Well, I don't recall many  complaints about ido vs iswitchb -- most
people were happy to use one or the other.  Probably more people use
ido, as it offers more features.  But I have just tested this:

(setq ido-mode 'buffer)
(ido-mode 1)

and this is pretty much what iswitchb offers.  There may be some
edge-cases and minor visual differences, but most iswitchb users will
probably cope!  So why not just mark iswitchb as obsolete and recommend
ido for those users?  I have no problem with that.  In fact, I 
suggested (perhaps privately to Kim, author of ido) several years ago we
can do this.  But as iswitchb hasn't need much maintenance (by me) over
the years I've never found sufficient need to merge it.

ido is favoured here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-01/msg00528.html

And, in the interests of balance, here is RMS's view against making
iswitchb (or ido) on by default:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-03/msg02058.html

!

Stephen