Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b0e318d 2/2: Score flex-style completions according to match tightness

[João Távora]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:07 PM Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Also, I think the scoring would be valuable for `partial-completion` and
> > `initialism` styles as well (i.e. for all users of PCM).
> Shouldn't flex-score-match-tightness be renamed, then? So it doesn't
> leave an impression of being specific to just one completion style.
>
> The first line of its docstring also seems misleading.

Re the docstring, you must be refering to the "flex" mention there,
because "Controls how the style scores its matches" is pretty much
what the variable does (and all that can be crammed in columns).

As I said, when I added this, it was largely open to debate where
scoring would be plugged in.  At that point I thought the style,
particularly the flex style, would be the right spot, but the debate
evolved.  Regardless of making this more general, the flex style
still is the spot where such scoring is needed most urgently, and
I think we should keep it there for a while.

> Further, purely theoretically, I'm a bit concerned that if we include
> scoring at this level, in the common function, it would be harder to
> tweak for each individual completion style. But that can be changed
> later if we so choose, of course.

A handful of us should eventually start using it first before engaging
in such microtweaks.  I'm more wary of the performance hit that
flex-matching introduces (the matching, not the scoring).  I wonder
if ditching pcm's regexp based approach and coding something by
hand (perhaps in C) would be faster.  I haven't done any
measurements but the thing feels slow to me: so I wish more
people could experiment with it (and with company, too)

João