[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:33:59 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0

On 07.11.2019 12:27, João Távora wrote:

I recognize others feel differently, though.

It seems to be more than "feeling".  Have you asked yourself why the
whole industry seems to does it differently (i.e. with bold or some
other contrasting color)?

I'm assuming that's rhetorical. But I have also pointed out how we differ from "the whole industry" in other respects, for good or bad.

But there are two questions here: do we highlight common-part by default at all, and which color to use.

I think it's because not all people have your
spectacular eyesight and not all of them have such great monitors (or
use them at a more conservative power setting).

I'm always using mine at 50% brightness at most. But never mind.

then I would really suggest we use it instead. But if it's not legible
for you, e.g. my monitor is unusually high-contrast or whatever, oh

If the proposal is blue4 than my votes changes to "against".  The
reasoning is that it is counter-productive.  I imagine a new user
enabling, say, M-x fido-mode in Emacs 27, and asking himself "If they
were going to choose face for this, why choose this
near-indistinguishable, vision-straining thing?".

The idea is that one would really need to find out why a given string is among the matches very rarely. Maybe once of twice, and they'll simply trust the completion engine after that. And for a one-off task, one might as well squint a little.

If the common scenario is different, and we expect that the user will look at common-part every time, to figure out what to type next, maybe we should discuss why the first-difference face is not enough for that.

There's no space
there to answer "oh, you see, some people didn't like highlighting at
all, mostly in other matching styles you're not going to use, so we
chose this crappy middle-of-road compromise.  Also we don't care much
for your old-man's eyesight."

Vice versa, one might ask why we added this in-your-face highlighting why simply looks like a solid blue (or aquamarine) column in the Completions buffer. And we'll have to answer that, well, there exists a recently added non-default completion style where this highlighting is really useful.


PS: If only there was a way to make flex use another highlighting...

BTW, speaking of backward compatibility, some of the changes in face placement you proposed would break company-capf's implementation of the 'match' action.

reply via email to

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