[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Do shorthands break basic tooling (tags, grep, etc)? (was Re: Shorth

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Do shorthands break basic tooling (tags, grep, etc)? (was Re: Shorthands have landed on master)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 20:34:01 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  psainty@orcon.net.nz,  acm@muc.de,
>   rms@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 11:55:47 -0400
> Completion styles are supposed to work meaningfully with "any"
> completion table.  Some completion styles make more sense with some
> tables than others, admittely (and some like the `backend` completion
> style only do something useful with those completion tables setup to
> take advantage of it), but the completion styles should be agnostic to
> where the completion candidates come from (that's the job of completion
> tables), and so far that's been true of all completion styles.

That sounds like a principle (a.k.a. "dogma") that doesn't have to be
universally accepted.  E.g., what terrible things will happen if we
allow a style that is NOT agnostic to the source of the completion

> > And can't it be left for 'master', as it's kind of a new feature?
> I see no need to push any of this to `emacs-28`, so all my
> recommendations are for `master` here.

Then what do you suggest we do on the release branch?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]