On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 1:12 AM Eli Zaretskii <
eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> From: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 14:17:57 -0500
> Cc: juri@linkov.net, sbaugh@catern.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:52 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com>
> > Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:21:47 -0500
> > Cc: juri@linkov.net, sbaugh@catern.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > I feel confident that more users will understand "History order" than "in the
> > order of their typing".
> >
> > How about "Sorted in the order of minibuffer history"?
>
> That's better, but if you are okay with that, how about "Sorted in the
> chronological order of minibuffer input"?
>
> That does not mention history, so I think it's worse - how are user supposed to know it's about
> history?
?? Didn't you yourself say several messages ago it was NOT about
history? I quote:
> > Oh, no, this is about sorting completion candidates, not history.
So now you say this IS about history?
It's about sorting completion candidates so that their order matches the order of the minibuffer history. So yes, it relates to history. But it's not sorting the history - that's what I meant.
> But I'm okay with "Sorted in chronological order of minibuffer history".
This is tautology: history is always in chronological order. We are
in effect wasting one word by repeating another.
Okay, I agree. I think "history" is the more important of the two words here, so how about "Sorted in order of minibuffer history"