Re: find-file-project

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 01/20/2016 04:32 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> Hmm... can't remember exactly what were the problems.  I think it had to
> do with my desire to reproduce the exact same behavior as the old
> filecache.el.
>
> FWIW, see the current diff I have.

Were you going to attach it?

> > Alternatively, a "native" company backend can
> > return a cons value with a fake "length" to compare against the latter
> > variable's value (or t, to mean that the check will succeed). I've recently
> > accepted a patch adding a similar capability to company-capf, on github:
> > https://github.com/company-mode/company-mode/pull/450.
>
> Good, so we should be able to do it within nxml's capf.

Yup.

> Not sure in general (e.g. for attributes), but for tag names at least,
> I think that's pretty much the case.

Attribute values could be a problem, but why not in attribute names? Do 
we expect to work with freakish schemas, with thousands of possible 
attributes?

> Not sure what you mean by "complex enough": do you mean "flexible enough
> that we don't need a new mechanism", or "so complex that adding yet
> another method would make them really unbearable"?

The latter. =/

> > But that's a bit of a separate concern: since completion-try-completion and
> > completion-all-completions are on a higher level, I think *they* could be
> > generics, whereas the all-completions/etc could stay as they are.
>
> But the only argument they receive is the completion-table, so we need
> them to be "dispatchable".

They who? completion-try-completion and the other? The default method 
will handle lists/alists/hash-tables and functions. The specialized 
methods will handle "dispatchable" types.

> [ Side note: I've been toying with the idea of "callable objects", by
> which I mean thingies which have slots and dispatchable types (like
> cl-structs or eieio objects) but which can also be passed to funcall.
> We could use them for the advice objects of nadvice.el, for the stream
> objects of stream.el, and potentially here as well.  ]

Like a closure, but with named fields as its environment? I can see how 
it could be handy for debugging, but not how it would help with the 
issue at hand.