Jo??o T??vora <address@hidden> writes:
??scar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
Jo??o T??vora <address@hidden> writes:
It sounds like you're an ido-mode fan, so please try out
fido-mode and tell me what you think is missing from it. I
know a lot is, and I want to improve it.
Has fido-mode support for flx-ido? Can I plug it in? Any other
completion system that I know on Emacs is unbearably dumb IMAO.
I don't know flx. According to its github page flx is a "matching
engine", what in Emacs is a "completion style", I believe. Right? A
way to match a pattern to a universe/set of possible strings and to
return a (possibly propertized/annotated) subset of those strings.
It takes a set of candidates and a string as inputs. The algorithm
associates a score to each candidate based on the string and outputs a
list of matching candidates sorted by the score.
If so, and if flx adheres to the completion-styles API, then it's very
easy to plug in. If it doesn't, maybe the author can find a way to
adapt it, just like Thierry did recently in Helm.
Where can I learn about that completion-styles API?
You can also try 'flex' and tell me what you think you are missing from
flx. I don't find flex "unbearably dumb" :-)
I have experience with ido's flex and can't compare. flx requires some
training but then it is extremely effective. I no longer bother to
memorize most keyboard shorcuts, because by just remembering *some* part
of the command's name it can be easily invoked through M-x, often with
less keypresses (and with much less chording). It is quite effective at
discovering new commands, once you have an idea of the naming convention
that a package uses. Last, but not least, it is the matching system used
by some of the "cool kids" that competes with Emacs (Sublime Text, to
name one).