[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default
From: |
João Távora |
Subject: |
Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Nov 2019 14:44:58 +0000 |
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 2:34 PM Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 07.11.2019 12:27, João Távora wrote:
> > It seems to be more than "feeling". Have you asked yourself why the
> > whole industry seems to does it differently (i.e. with bold or some
> > other contrasting color)?
> I'm assuming that's rhetorical.
It wasn't. Assume you have asked yourself that, what answer did you
arrive at?
> The idea is that one would really need to find out why a given string is
> among the matches very rarely. Maybe once of twice, and they'll simply
> trust the completion engine after that. And for a one-off task, one
> might as well squint a little.
squinting is bad, mkay?
But it's interesting you point that out, because it allows me
to think why I want this: one of the inherent characteristics of "flex"
is precisely that it can't be "trusted" 100%. It makes educated guesses,
hopefully very good ones, but sometimes fails, so the user double-checks
via the highlighting.
> Vice versa, one might ask why we added this in-your-face highlighting
> why simply looks like a solid blue (or aquamarine) column in the
> Completions buffer. And we'll have to answer that, well, there exists a
> recently added non-default completion style where this highlighting is
> really useful.
No. It's totally _not_ harmful in the default style. It doesn't make the
first-difference character any harder to spot, nor the preceding text
harder to read
> BTW, speaking of backward compatibility, some of the changes in face
> placement you proposed would break company-capf's implementation of the
> 'match' action.
I can make a patch for that, if you explain what happens. If it's the
decision where to put company's emphasis, just put it wherever
completions-emphasis is.
João
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, (continued)
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Yuri Khan, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Yuri Khan, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Stefan Monnier, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Dmitry Gutov, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Dmitry Gutov, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default,
João Távora <=
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Dmitry Gutov, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/07
- RE: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Drew Adams, 2019/11/07
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Dmitry Gutov, 2019/11/08
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/08
- RE: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Drew Adams, 2019/11/08
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Juri Linkov, 2019/11/09
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/09
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/09
- Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default, João Távora, 2019/11/09