Re: is it possible to choose a completion engine?

[Tory S. Anderson]

Ah! Turns out I rely on the Fast completion more than I realized; I am used to 
hitting "t p" from the agenda to tag an item with a custom status I've created, 
as you guessed in your message. But untouched was the type of key-menu I really 
want to hide when, for example, I hit =C-c a= =org-agenda= and get a menu of 
agenda options to choose from, or =(org-clock-goto '(4))= and I get a big 
indexed list of clock items. I don't mind keeping the fast keys, but would love 
for the big screens of options to go away. The =org-use-fast-todo-selection= 
and =org-use-fast-tag-selection= variables do not effect the method used for 
those big index screens, which are the ones I actually care about and would 
like to use with standard completion.

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> webdev@toryanderson.com (Tory S. Anderson) writes:
>
>> Org currently stands out from my workflow because it does completions its 
>> own way, with lists and number/letter keys. It would be nice if I could 
>> instead have the benefit of vertico, or helm, or whatever else instead. Org 
>> would even benefit from marginalia and embark in some cases. Is there an 
>> easy variable I'm missing to make org use completing-reads instead of the 
>> indexing thing it does?
>
> This is because you customized your tags/todo keywords to have a quick
> key binding to set. By default, Org uses custom "fast" interface for
> completion in such cases. You can either remove the bindings to
> explicitly set `org-use-fast-tag-selection' and/or
> `org-use-fast-todo-selection' to nil.