[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Mar 2022 23:14:56 +0000 |
> >> In case of no completions it will be formatted to: "0 possible
> >> completions".
> >
> > Why? Why wouldn't *Completions* just be
> > removed? And "[No match]" is already echoed.
>
> In the original code there is a message to print when there are no
> completions, that's where the original question came from. Actually the
> new code is simpler.
Dunno what that means. What "original code"?
And I see nothing in your "original question"
(the start of this thread) about any of this.
I don't care whether "the new code is simpler"
(and simpler than what - what old code?).
I'm interested in the user experience.
Coding that experience isn't the problem
(shouldn't be, anyway).
> > Sounds like things are getting more, not less,
> > complicated for users (maybe overengineering?).
>
> For the user everything is pretty much the same.
Doesn't sound like it - not regarding what I
asked about, at least.
I have nothing against keeping *Completions*
showing and updating it as a user changes the
pattern to match (and either explicitly asks
for a rematch or has elected to get automatic
rematching).
In fact, I invented such behavior for Emacs
(a couple decades ago).
But why would we not _remove_ *Completions*
when there are no matches?
We tell users in the echo area that there are
no matches. Why also show an empty buffer,
for nonexistent completions, with a redundant
message there saying there are none?
(That's IBM's "This page intentionally left
blank." But at least there was a reason for
that notice.)
Maybe "the new code is simpler". It sounds
like the new user experience is less simple
- and maybe a step backward.
I understand your feature would be optional.
It sounds like it has room for improvement.
> > Why would we ever say "0 possible completions"?
> >
> > Why bother with "possible"? We never show
> > IMpossible completions, do we?
> >
> > When there are no matches we just tell users
> > there's no match. Always have. Simple.
And your answer is?
- Re: Question about completion behavior, (continued)
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/13
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/11
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Juri Linkov, 2022/03/12
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/13
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Juri Linkov, 2022/03/13
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/13
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/13
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/13
- RE: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior, Drew Adams, 2022/03/13
- Re: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/13
- RE: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/13
- RE: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior, Drew Adams, 2022/03/13
- RE: [External] : Re: Question about completion behavior, Drew Adams, 2022/03/12
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/09
- [PATCH] Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/09
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/09
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/03/09
- Re: Question about completion behavior, Ergus, 2022/03/09