[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Why fido, icycles, ido, icomplete

From: Óscar Fuentes
Subject: Re: Why fido, icycles, ido, icomplete
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 23:39:07 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

João Távora <address@hidden> writes:

> Now, I wish I could just put 'flex' (and many other things) in
> ido-mode.

Ido has a `flex' completion style. Maybe it is a different one?

> Actually the matter is much more complicated.  Ido mode is a completely
> separate completion system that doesn't respect Emacs completion
> interfaces (completion-in-region-functions,
> completion-at-point-functions, completion-styles, etc etc etc ).

Should it? This is like the recent discussion about implementing new
commands on VC: insisting on a common interface hampers diversity and
innovation. We must accept that different tools sometimes deserve
specific user interfaces.

> This
> means it doesn't work nicely for M-x, C-h f, and many many other
> completion situations.

Ido works nicely here for those cases with just a few lines on my .emacs
and an extra package installed (ido-hacks).


> I was a heavy Ido addict for many years because it has the best
> interface, hands down, much better than Ivy, or Helm, IMO of course.  I
> also know many people in my company that swear by it.  But the
> implementation was impossibly hard to hack on.

Ido here has a customized look (courtesy of ido-grid-mode.el), a
customized completion scheme (flx-ido) and some more bells and whistles.
This indicates to me that ido is more hackable than your message
implies. I'm not denying that it could be much better on that regard,


reply via email to

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