On 7/24/08, Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:08:29 -0400 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
>> The advantage over categories, which you suggested, is that the
>> completion code won't need categories supplied--it automatically gets
>> them based on the word syntax, so it's less work for the programmer and
SM> Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by word syntax.
SM> Are you referring to something more like partial-completion-mode?
That's close, but it looks for abbreviations rather than categories, and
is nicest when you know the word you want in advance. When you don't,
you still have to walk through the list of candidates.
The essential problem is that more than 40 or so candidates are simply
unusable--it's not just slow, it's unmanageable. You don't know what's
at the end of the list until you go there, and by then you've forgotten
what was at the beginning. With categories you end up with meaningful
prefixes instead, as in my example. The category name is meaningful
because the name of the thing you are completing is split in an
informational way, not (as p-c-m does) by first letter, and then the
first thing from the split string is used as the category.
If this doesn't sound useful I'll drop it.
Ted
To me it sounded very useful.