RE: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default

[Drew Adams]

> > That would still mean two diffeerent execution flows.
> 
> Don't know what you mean exactly. But yes, I guess. When
> using prefix I am focused on one thing, when using flex I am
> focused on another thing.  I think that already happens anyway
> (the internal focus of the user).
> 
> But I don't use prefix much nowadays, fortunately. The beginning
> of a name has no special place in my mind.
> 
> But Juri has given as an example a search box that does
> exactly this mixing _in the same search results_.

I haven't really followed all of the messages,
and I'm not sure what is meant here, by "mixing
completion styles in the same search results".

But if it's about mixing different completion
styles or methods to narrow the same initial
set of candidates, then Icicles does offer that.

You can provide multiple separate search
patterns, and you can change completion method
anytime, including between patterns.

You can, for example, match using a regexp
pattern, then match those matches (also, i.e.,
ANDing) using a flex pattern, and so on.

* `M-(' cycles among the currently available
  completion methods.

* `S-SPC' switches to another pattern (ANDed).

The ability to switch methods anytime is
useful.  The ability to add patterns (getting
the intersection of their matched-candidate
sets) is _very_ useful.  The latter is used
all the time.  The former is used less often.

The former (switching methods on the fly) is
described here:

https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_Completion_Methods_and_Styles

The latter (progressive completion) is
described here:

https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_Progressive_Completion
___

Which set of completion methods is available
can even be made command-specific.  That's
described here:

https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_Completion_Methods_and_Styles#CommandSpecificCompletionMethods
___

Finally, a mention that besides ANDing
matches of multiple patterns (`S-SPC'),
you can complement the current set of
matches, using `C-~'.

Matching A, then also B, then `C-~' gives
you matches of A that are NOT also matches
of B.  (And as mentioned, the completion
methods for A and B need not be the same.)

Each time you use `C-~' you remove matches
of the last pattern: provide a pattern,
then `C-~' to remove its matches, repeat.

This "Chipping away of the non-elephant" is
described here:

https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Icicles_-_Nutshell_View#ChippingAway