[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass o
From: |
Vitalie Spinu |
Subject: |
Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion. |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:18:14 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130004 (Ma Gnus v0.4) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) |
>>>> Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
>>>> on Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:42:27 -0400 wrote:
>> Yes, and no. What I meant is that the underlying mechanisms are very
>> different. 99.99% of the time the completion candidates are the same,
>> but there are objects which are not meaningful to cache, like arguments
>> of the user functions, or components of the recursive structures (lists,
>> environments, data.frames etc.). In this cases AC also calls the
>> process, and it's usually fast. But in some extreme corner cases, like
>> if user changed a function in an attached package, AC will still use the
>> cached version.'
> So, IIUC it would be perfectly OK for TAB completion to use the AC code.
Indeed, you could be right that always one-for-all completion function
might be made enough for the prefix completion. But I don't see how popup
menu can properly deal with partial completions for example, or
expansions a la yas. So you would still need a separate list for those.
And the old argument still stands - would the user like to have the same
redundant list of completion functions for C-M-i and popup menu?
>>> Hmm... more consistency in the naming might be good here, indeed.
>>> It's important to keep the "<package>-" prefix since I don't want to
>>> consider all of this as part of Emacs's "core", but maybe we could
>>> settle on "<something>-completion-at-point-function" or maybe something
>>> shorter than that.
>> I am a fan of the -completion postfix convention. It's easy to match in
>> apropos, anything or IDO regexp: comint-filename-completion,
>> tags-completion, imenu-completion, imenu-in-same-mode-completion,
>> words-in-same-buffer-commpletion etc. It can get pretty long by itself,
>> so a short postfix is better.
> But I suspect it will generate false positives because it's not
> specific enough. Maybe "-completion-data"?
Maybe -c-a-p, or -c-a-p-data?
Vitalie.
- Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Vitalie Spinu, 2012/03/16
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Vitalie Spinu, 2012/03/16
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Stefan Monnier, 2012/03/16
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Vitalie Spinu, 2012/03/17
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Stefan Monnier, 2012/03/17
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Lennart Borgman, 2012/03/17
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Vitalie Spinu, 2012/03/17
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Stefan Monnier, 2012/03/17
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Vitalie Spinu, 2012/03/18
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Stefan Monnier, 2012/03/18
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion.,
Vitalie Spinu <=
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Stefan Monnier, 2012/03/18
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Vitalie Spinu, 2012/03/19
- Re: Completion with (:exclusive 'no) is called twice, and doesn't pass over on sole completion., Stefan Monnier, 2012/03/19