|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: BIKESHED: completion faces |
Date: | Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:11:01 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 |
On 06.11.2019 12:25, João Távora wrote: > My proposal has two parts, the second one is optionalOK, thank you. I'm sorry to say, it's too convoluted for my liking. But others' opinions are welcome.
This second steps yields a moderate gain in "consistency" to other editors that also use prefix-matching somehow.
Speaking of other editors, the usual way to pick a completion there is either to use arrow keys then press RET, or to press TAB several times.
In completion-at-point, the user needs to type a letter to disambiguate. So completions-first-difference, or whatever it should be called, is more important here.
I also want to review my previous comment to this. I said those editors "suck", but that is totally gratuitous since I have no idea exactly what they do. If limiting yields performance increaase, then of course we should do it. In fact I use this in SLY, when I have to send completions through the wire. But I don't in any way limit the set of symbols from which completions can be collected. This set has to be explored fully, because the "best" match might lurk at the very boundaries or the set.
Right. I think I've made that distinction when describing the "sorted/scored tree of completions" idea.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |