[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: BIKESHED: completion faces

From: João Távora
Subject: Re: BIKESHED: completion faces
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:00:26 +0000

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 3:40 PM Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > From: João Távora <address@hidden>
> > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:00:41 +0000
> > Cc: Ergus <address@hidden>, emacs-devel <address@hidden>,
> >       Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>, Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> >
> > OK! So will you accept a version of my "renames" patch that affects
> > just the `flex` completion style? (or maybe the flex and the other
> > esoteric completion styles (pcm, substring)?
> I admit that I don't understand the purpose of that renaming.  I
> thought we were discussing how to highlight parts of completion
> candidates differently from what we do now, not about renaming the
> related faces.  Why are face names important enough to justify their
> renaming?

We _can_ do it without renaming, but then flex would be applying
"first-difference" to mean "I, flex, want these parts of the completions
I generate emphasized".  Which could lead to confusion when reading
the code.

So, if we rename, keeping backward-compatible face aliases

  "first-difference" to "completion-emphasis" and
  "common-part"  to "secondary-emphasis"

then it's not so confusing, when reading the code or when inspecting
a completion candidate.  It still fits nicely with the traditional 'basic's
view of completion (main emphasis on first difference, secondary
emphasis on common part) and is generically useful for new
completion styles.

Thanks for giving this a second look,

reply via email to

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