emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs completion matches selection UI


From: Ted Zlatanov
Subject: Re: Emacs completion matches selection UI
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:00:25 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:10:18 -0500 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote: 

>>>> That, and to also highlight the portion of the selected entry that
>>>> matches if the match is partial.
SM> Hmm... don't we do that already?
>> Not from in-buffer completion AFAICT.  Yes from minibuffer completion.

SM> I see the same highlighting for in-buffer completion as for
SM> minibuffer completion.  So please make a bug-report when you see
SM> the problem.  It's probably an in-buffer completion which still uses
SM> ad-hoc code rather than relying on the completion-at-point
SM> infrastructure.

OK, I'll try to replicate it, thanks.

>> After thinking about it, I agree with Josh.  Proposal:
>> 1) in minibuffer completion:
>> `right' or `C-f' at minibuffer point-max enters completion candidates
>> buffer (where then `up' and `down' are remapped, we have the user captive)
>> `left' in the completion candidates buffer goes back to the minibuffer
>> 2) in-buffer completion:
>> enter completion candidates buffer immediately (where then `up' and
>> `down' are remapped, we have the user captive).  Make it easy to get out
>> and back to the original buffer.

SM> Maybe "enter immediately" is also an option for the minibuffer case.

It would work for me.  After `TAB' I expect either an immediate
completion if there's just one candidate, or an error if there are none,
or the completion candidates selection UI.

SM> I agree that C-f at EOL in the minibuffer is a "safe" choice, but
SM> I don't think that hijacking `up' and `down' would be problematic
SM> either, because we'd only hijack them after displaying *Completions*,
SM> and I expect users tend to rely on the history only *before* displaying
SM> the *Completions*, but not so much afterwards.

I understand now.  Yes, that would work fine.

Ted




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]