[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ELPA] New package: transient
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: [ELPA] New package: transient |
Date: |
Sat, 02 May 2020 21:45:10 +0300 |
> From: 조성빈 <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 03:37:31 +0900
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,
> address@hidden,
> address@hidden,
> address@hidden
>
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 작성:
>
> >> 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
Which does the same, just in a menu. How's that different?
> > 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.
How's that relevant to the issue at hand? It's a tangent.
> It’s very different from having to explicitly look up.
No, it isn't. "Look up" means look through the list of candidates,
applying some logic towards the decision which candidate to choose.
> >> 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.)
Let's see how the re- renaming thread evolves, I'm not sure everyone
will agree.
> Whether or not the searcher wants to know about rx or not,
> it’s probably true that one doesn’t want gmm-regexp-concat.
Why not? Sounds like a very useful function for someone who works
with regular expressions.
- RE: [ELPA] New package: transient, (continued)
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Richard Stallman, 2020/05/03
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, 조성빈, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, 조성빈, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, 조성빈, 2020/05/02
- RE: [ELPA] New package: transient, Drew Adams, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Yuan Fu, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, João Távora, 2020/05/02
- RE: [ELPA] New package: transient, Drew Adams, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, João Távora, 2020/05/02
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Richard Stallman, 2020/05/03
- Re: [ELPA] New package: transient, Philippe Vaucher, 2020/05/02