bug#45780: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Face used for affixation function annotations

[Juri Linkov]

>> 1. when only annotation suffix string is provided, then the face
>>     completion-annotations is added;
>> 2. when both prefix and suffix are provided, then the client decides
>>     what face to add.  Also it's possible to provide an empty prefix
>>     string to be able to specify a custom face for the suffix string.
>> So when the client wants to override the default annotation face,
>> this is already easy to do using something like (this is not a patch
>> to commit, but just demonstration of current abilities):
>
> I would prefer the more automatic behaviour I proposed as having
> completion-annotations face is nice when the client has not thought about
> it but when the client has provided a string with a face it is likely the
> client wants exactly that face and not a combination with
> completion-annotations face. Basing the decision on a provided prefix seems
> a bit arbitrary and one would need to figure this out by looking at
> the code.

Do you want to use the completion-annotations face conditionally only
for annotations, i.e. when only the suffix is provided by the client?
Because when a prefix is provided as well, then it's not an annotation
anymore, so the completion-annotations face is not applicable to prefixes.

Doing this is not something new, we already have the same logic
in minibuffer-message:

    (unless (or (null minibuffer-message-properties)
                ;; Don't overwrite the face properties the caller has set
                (text-properties-at 0 message))
      (setq message (apply #'propertize message minibuffer-message-properties)))

Is this logic suitable for completion-annotations?