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

[Stefan Kangas]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

>> The fact that this UI paradigm is so ubiquitous suggests that you might
>> be in the minority here.
>
> I don't think that that should delegitimize the preference though.

Sure.

It should tell us something about which is the better default, though.

>>>> (It's also a popular choice elsewhere, try for example entering
>>>> something into the search bar on Google or DuckDuckGo.  The same
>>>> paradigm you see there is used in a lot of desktop software.)
>>>
>>> Those are for selection, not for completion.  I thought we'd already
>>> established that the two are quite different.  We should not conflate
>>> them, nor force users use only one of them where both could make
>>> sense, IMO.
>>
>> I don't think the distinction matters here.  We are discussing if
>> candidates should be shown eagerly, and my answer is "yes".
>
> Are you using an alternative completion framework? I find it interesting
> how some people agree with the distinction and others don't, and wonder
> if the way they use Emacs shapes their opinion.

I use ivy, and previously I've used ido for many years.  They both show
candidates immediately, without having to press TAB.

As does most other completion frameworks, AFAICT: helm, icomplete, smex,
selectrum, etc.