Re: [VM] vm-pcrisis

[Uday Reddy]

Jay Borkenhagen writes:

> Thanks, Uday!  I guess I did not suspect that I had some typos of that
> kind because I did not receive any error messages.

Indeed, I realized through this dialogue that `set-variable' is much better
in the customization code because it checks for variable names and types
etc.  We are used to writing `setq' from the old days, when there wasn't
much difference between the two.  But, now, `set-variable' is a better
option.

I noticed that the customization types for the VMPC variables were broken.
I am fixing them in the development version.

> As for the overly-elaborate strings: I agree with you wholeheartedly.
> I was using them only to help me stick closer to the texinfo manual.
> If you would like me to take a shot at simplifying/correcting the
> texinfo, I would gladly do so as my contribution to the cause.

Unfortunately, now that I looked at the customization types of these
variables, I realize that they are asking for strings.  So, I am afraid we
are stuck with strings for now.

On the other hand, please feel free to make corrections to the texinfo
file.  It is long overdue!

> One thing that isn't quite working as I used to have or as is
> documented in the texinfo is the prompting.  Per the texinfo:
> 
>   One thing to bear in mind is that when you are prompted, there will
>   be auto-completion available -- you'll only need to type enough to
>   uniquely identify a profile (you won't even need to hit TAB).
> 
> I find that I do need to hit tab now to get the auto-completion.  If
> my two profiles are "work" and "braeburn", I would like to be able to
> type "w RET" and have vm-pcrisis behave as if I had entered the entire
> "work RET".  But now "w RET" leaves 'Action "w" does not exist!' in
> the minibuffer.

I notice that Rob Fenk worked on VMPC a lot during 2006 and 2007.  He has
apparently removed/reduced the auto-completion features for
prompt-for-profile.  I don't know why.  I will check.

Meanwhile, canyou use SPC for completion, instead of TAB?  That should be
quite a bit easier.

Cheers,
Uday