Re: Usability suggestion : completion for M-:

[paul r]

Drew Adams said :

> So why don't you propose that for discussion, instead of this discussion?
>  The logic for that is as valid for Lisp modes generally as it is for M-:.

In this spirit, a dedicated thread for your multiline-enhanced M-: could help.

>  To evaluate a Lisp sexp, you can today (1) use M-:, (2) use *scratch*, or
>  (3) use an Emacs-Lisp buffer.

(4) enter it straight in current buffer and hit C-x C-e after closing
paren. (1) and (4) are the only solution I see to evaluate in the
context of the current buffer.

>  > The reason I supported adding a new keybinding TAB in addition to the
>  > existing keybinding M-TAB is because after installing a patch that
>  > implements shell-like command completion with TAB, it will be natural
>  > to expect the same TAB completion for more minibuffer commands to
>  > complete part of the minibuffer (not the entire minibuffer input).
>
>
> I'm not convinced that represents progress, personally.

I'd like to share your opinion, but my brain just needs completion as
much as possible.

> Fine. Allow me to be the exception. We can do better. M-: can be better
>  still.

Agree, but in the meantime, binding TAB to tabulation character
instead of symbol completion in the current one-line minibuffer is
inconsistent with the behaviour of others minibuffer prompts. When we
have a fully bodied multiline indentable M-:, things can change. It's
not like if binding TAB on something or another is a big deal. Finaly,
multiline M-: could co-exist as an other mode with its own bindings,
I'd still like to have TAB bound to complete symbol in the current
one-line M-: as long as it will live. And this thead is about current
form of M-: