[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Any objection to adding completing-read-function?
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Any objection to adding completing-read-function? |
Date: |
Tue, 31 May 2011 08:27:45 -0700 |
1. Leo's original patch said this near the beginning of the doc string for
`completing-read':
"This function calls `completing-read-function' to do the work"
That's very clear. What finally got implemented removed that explanation and
just added this to the very end of the (very long) doc string:
"See also `completing-read-function'."
That's insufficiently clear, IMO. There is a big difference between the two in
terms of communication to users. The former makes clear what
`completing-read-function' is about - its role for `completing-read'. The
latter relegates `completing-read-function' to a "see also".
I have the same comment wrt `read-file-name'. IMO it would be preferable to say
that it calls `read-file-name-function' to do the work, instead of just adding a
"see also" at the very end.
2. I would also prefer it if the code for `completing-read-function' and its
treatment were in Lisp, not C. No, I won't be submitting a patch. ;-) Dunno
how easy it would be to move this to Lisp, but IMO it would be preferable if it,
just like `read-file-name-function', were in minibuffer.el. These two variables
are parallel.
At this stage in the game it doesn't seem like we should be adding completion
code to the C sources. Ideally we should be moving the last remaining pieces of
the completion code (e.g., `completing-read') completely to Lisp instead. How
about putting this on the TODO list?
- RE: Any objection to adding completing-read-function?,
Drew Adams <=