Re: [PATCH] (icomplete-vertical-mode): Add support for affixations and, annotations

[Gregory Heytings]

> Why do you think the code is not modular enough? Previously, it mixed 
> vertical and non-vertical mode with a bunch of ifs, now vertical mode is 
> handled in its own function.  Not ideal, but at least more modular to 
> me.
>
> You seem to be conflating the ability to configure a system with the 
> modularity of its implementation in code.

I did not say it's "less modular", I said it is "not modular enough".

> Who do you think doesn't want to see those numbers?  You personally?

I do not want to see these numbers indeed, and again I'd be surprised if I 
were the only one.  IMO displaying that information wastes CPU cycles for 
no good reason.

> A hook is a variable, and considerably more complex than a boolean. 
> Why is that better here and how would it solve the problem?

It is better because other users can define other functions in their init 
files and use them instead of the default ones.

> > As I feared, the code to scroll the candidates list does not work 
> > correctly alas.  I've put lots of efforts to make "icomplete-vertical" 
> > work correctly in virtually every possible case, so I find this very 
> > regrettable.  For example, with frame-height = 47, 10 candidates are 
> > displayed, yet the candidates list rotates on the 7th candidate 
> > (instead of the 11th one).
>
> This is by design.  Works like Vertico and many other completers.

We can and should do better than other completers.

> Can't reproduce this, I see it scroll on the third visual candidate.
>
> [...]
>
> I also can't reproduce these two cases, not with Emacs -Q.  Maybe you're 
> using some extra configuration?  What?

No, I'm using emacs -Q (on Debian GNU/Linux with GTK in case it matters).

> > If I start working on this (again), I would likely change most of your 
> > code into something else, and it would take some time, because it's a 
> > difficult problem.  Would you agree with this?
>
> First say what you would want to change it to, and why.

I explained it above.