|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] `completing-read`: Add `group-function` support to completion metadata (REVISED PATCH) |
Date: | Thu, 29 Apr 2021 20:55:32 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 |
On 29.04.2021 20:16, Daniel Mendler wrote:
On 4/29/21 7:09 PM, Dmitry Gutov wrote:If affixation-function didn't return a three-element list (and instead only returned some focused information pertaining to a single value), you wouldn't have this problem.I don't understand the argument here.
It's an argument about being able to "do more with less", and as a side-effect not have to worry about resolving potential conflicts in duplication of information.
From my perspective the `affixation-function` is good as is. It is a generalization of the `annotation-function` which allows transformation of all candidates at once and it additionally allows prefixes. However one could discuss if the affixation function should be allowed to transform the actual candidate string, as has been mentioned in the discussion before. I think one can set text properties but one is not allowed to change the candidate string - this will break `choose-completion`.
I don't think anything like this necessarily has to break 'choose-completion': the UI can remember the mapping between "transformed" and actual completion strings. It's just extra complexity in implementation.
On the higher level, though, I do believe completion tables should not define _presentation_, only information (with some well-defined exceptions, maybe).
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |