João Távora <address@hidden> writes:
> Now, I wish I could just put 'flex' (and many other things) in
> ido-mode.
Ido has a `flex' completion style. Maybe it is a different one?
Yes it is. I created the flex completion style so it could be used
across the board, in every completion frontend, not just icomplete.
Should it? This is like the recent discussion about implementing new
commands on VC: insisting on a common interface hampers diversity and
innovation. We must accept that different tools sometimes deserve
specific user interfaces.
Sure, but we're not talking about user-facing interfaces here, rather about
interfaces between reusable components of Emacs.
> This
> means it doesn't work nicely for M-x, C-h f, and many many other
> completion situations.
Ido works nicely here for those cases with just a few lines on my .emacs
and an extra package installed (ido-hacks).
But it won't work with, say SLY's capf-abiding completion table.
Or Eglot's (or lsp-mode's for that matter).
I think the name of the package you use to do that also
says something about the quality of the integration. :-)
This indicates to me that ido is more hackable than your message
implies. I'm not denying that it could be much better on that regard,
though.
But those additions only bring it farther away from integrating
into Emacs's completion facilities, and reaping those benefits.
You'll have to write a package to make ido-mode use Helm's
super-special matching styles, but you won't for icomplete.
But I didn't mean to knock ido-mode. When I'm in a tight spot
on someone else's contorted Emacs, it's still my goto M-x.
It sounds like you're an ido-mode fan, so please try out
fido-mode and tell me what you think is missing from it. I
know a lot is, and I want to improve it.
João