Re: Stepping Back: A Wealth Of Completion systems Re: [ELPA] New package: vertico

[Philip Kaludercic]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> > Right away, i.e. even without the user typing anything? that'd produce
>>> > a huge list of candidates, which would be impractical to display.
>>> This is what e.g. ivy does on M-x, and it works well in practice.
>>>
>>> I find it much better to display candidates this way, and I think it
>>> would be a step forward if Emacs dit this itself OOTB.
>>
>> For me, it would be a step back.  I never use completion for
>> discovery, I always have a pretty good idea what I'm about to type
>> when I do.
>
> The fact that this UI paradigm is so ubiquitous suggests that you might
> be in the minority here.

I don't think that that should delegitimize the preference though. 

>>> (It's also a popular choice elsewhere, try for example entering
>>> something into the search bar on Google or DuckDuckGo.  The same
>>> paradigm you see there is used in a lot of desktop software.)
>>
>> Those are for selection, not for completion.  I thought we'd already
>> established that the two are quite different.  We should not conflate
>> them, nor force users use only one of them where both could make
>> sense, IMO.
>
> I don't think the distinction matters here.  We are discussing if
> candidates should be shown eagerly, and my answer is "yes".

Are you using an alternative completion framework? I find it interesting
how some people agree with the distinction and others don't, and wonder
if the way they use Emacs shapes their opinion.

-- 
        Philip K.