[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Order of eshell/pcomplete completions when cycling
From: |
Tassilo Horn |
Subject: |
Re: Order of eshell/pcomplete completions when cycling |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:53:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> I suspect that there has been a time where that used to work, and in
>> the meantime the completion stuff has changed and forgotten that some
>> completion users want sorted completions also without calling
>> `completion-all-sorted-completions'.
>
> Indeed, it seems that the pcomplete completion UI code was somehow
> broken when its innards were separated to provide
> pcomplete-completion-at-point.
>
> The right fix moving forward (which I've been meaning to do but
> haven't found time for yet) is to change Eshell to not use the
> `pcomplete' command any more, but to use `completion-at-point' instead
> and to finally obsolete the `pcomplete' command.
I've just tried that:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff -u --label /home/horn/Repos/el/emacs/lisp/eshell/em-cmpl.el --label
\#\<buffer\ em-cmpl.el\> /home/horn/Repos/el/emacs/lisp/eshell/em-cmpl.el
/tmp/buffer-content-2696WcN
--- /home/horn/Repos/el/emacs/lisp/eshell/em-cmpl.el
+++ #<buffer em-cmpl.el>
@@ -463,11 +463,7 @@
(interactive "p")
;; Pretend to be pcomplete so that cycling works (bug#13293).
(setq this-command 'pcomplete)
- (condition-case nil
- (if interactively
- (call-interactively 'pcomplete)
- (pcomplete))
- (text-read-only (completion-at-point)))) ; Workaround for bug#12838.
+ (completion-at-point))
(provide 'em-cmpl)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
As far as I can tell, I don't see any difference to before, i.e., all
pcomplete/<command> functions are still considered, and also the order
when cycling completions is now test/, test1/, test11/, test2/ so my
value of `eshell-cmpl-compare-entry-function' seems to take effect.
It seems I can also remove the this-command workaround for bug#13293
without any negative effect. (But I didn't test too hard.)
Bye,
Tassilo