[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 16:58:02 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0

On 07.11.2019 16:44, João Távora wrote:

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.

It wasn't. Assume you have asked yourself that, what answer did you
arrive at?

Some guesses regarding a different UI that I posted earlier. Or user expectations correlating to the current understanding of easy-to-use.

There are modern UI trends that are objectively bad, you know. Like the proliferation of dark-background themes (especially by default), or mixing light-on-dark with dark-on-light in the same theme without regard for contrast levels.

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.

squinting is bad, mkay?


But it's interesting you point that out, because it allows me
to think why I want this:  one of the inherent characteristics of "flex"
is precisely that it can't be "trusted" 100%.  It makes educated guesses,
hopefully very good ones, but sometimes fails, so the user double-checks
via the highlighting.

I don't understand this. flex is deterministic. Which part exactly cannot be trusted?

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

I can make a patch for that, if you explain what happens.

You wrote the current code yourself, actually.

If it's the
decision where to put company's emphasis, just put it wherever
completions-emphasis is.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Company highlights the common part, not simply whatever part completion style chooses to highlight.

reply via email to

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