[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: BIKESHED: completion faces

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: BIKESHED: completion faces
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:11:01 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0

On 06.11.2019 12:25, João Távora wrote:

> My proposal has two parts, the second one is optional

OK, thank you. I'm sorry to say, it's too convoluted for my liking. But others' opinions are welcome.

This second steps yields a moderate gain in "consistency" to other
editors that also use prefix-matching somehow.

Speaking of other editors, the usual way to pick a completion there is either to use arrow keys then press RET, or to press TAB several times.

In completion-at-point, the user needs to type a letter to disambiguate. So completions-first-difference, or whatever it should be called, is more important here.

I also want to review my previous comment to this.  I said those editors
"suck", but that is totally gratuitous since I have no idea exactly what
they do.  If limiting yields performance increaase, then of course we
should do it.  In fact I use this in SLY, when I have to send
completions through the wire.  But I don't in any way limit the set of
symbols from which completions can be collected.  This set has to be
explored fully, because the "best" match might lurk at the very
boundaries or the set.

Right. I think I've made that distinction when describing the "sorted/scored tree of completions" idea.

reply via email to

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