Re: [ELPA] New package: transient

[조성빈]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 작성:

> > From: 조성빈 <address@hidden>
> > Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 03:10:50 +0900
> > Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,
> >  address@hidden,
> >  address@hidden,
> >  address@hidden
> >
> > > > > Then "C-u C-h a WORDS..." is your friend.
> > > >
> > > > Nope, way too slow.
> > >
> > > Is that the only problem? then let's speed it up, and Bob's our uncle.
> >
> > My understanding is that slow here means that opening a new *Apropos*
> > buffer is an small, but additional mental burden when writing code, and
> > it slows down writing code.
>
> How is that different from having *Completions* pop up instead?

Which… is why a lot of people don’t use *Completion* and use company-mode
(or some other methods).

> And how is looking up the function you need a "burden", when any
> modern IDE provides some way of showing the possible candidates for
> what you want to do next?

Modern IDEs provide the candidates without needing to do any action.
It’s very different from having to explicitly look up.
(And that’s where the burden comes.)

> I say it isn't a burden, it's an integral
> part of writing code nowadays.
>
> > > Of course not!  I'm saying that "regular naming" will increase the
> > > length of the candidate list.
> >
> > The regular naming scheme will mean that we can only search functions that
> > start with regexp - since the searcher doesn’t need grep-regexp-alist or
> > gmm-regexp-concat when trying to get regexp APIs.
>
> Do they need rx, as just one example?

I think that’s a different question.
(FWIW, I consider that rx shouldn’t appear.)
Whether or not the searcher wants to know about rx or not,
it’s probably true that one doesn’t want gmm-regexp-concat.