RE: [External] : Re: Stepping Back: A Wealth Of Completion systems Re: [ELPA] New package: vertico

[Drew Adams]

> > What's the purpose of having that distinction?
> 
> My hypothisis is that selection is held back
> by completing-read,

Why do you think so?  Held back in what way(s)?
Details, please.

> and that a framework that is explicitly made for
> selection and not retrofitted into the existing
> framework could stand to improve the user experience.

Again, why do you think so?

This is as vague as a suggestion to rewrite Emacs
so it uses Rust (or Python or Scheme or whatever)
instead of Lisp, with no attempt to say what the
need for that is or the advantages would be.

I'm not arguing that `completing-read' has no
room for improvement.  In fact, I'm the first to
say (and to have said, and shown) that there's
plenty of room.

(I've actually improved it in many ways, in my
own code and practice.  Lots of details and
experience with my own "proposed" changes to it.)

But a vague argument at the level of "selecting"
versus "completing" doesn't cut it, in my book.

Push the existing envelope first, to see where
the real limits of `completing-read' are, before
asking for an overhaul.