Re: [PATCH] Re: Other details about completion.

[Ergus]

On Sat, Apr 02, 2022 at 09:09:29PM +0300, Juri Linkov wrote:
> > Hi again...
> >
> > Here I attached a small patch that makes 3 small changes:
> >
> > 1) Remove the trailing newline in completions one-column
> > 2) Use another condition in next-completion to jump to minibuffer.
> >
> > Normally next-completion with tabs at the end of the buffer needs an
> > extra tab because it goes to the end of the last completion before
> > jumping to the minibuffer or wrap.. That extra tab is because the
> > condition to jump or wrap was eobp/bobp assuming that there is not text
> > unproppertized after the last candidate.
> >
> > 3) Remove a comment in switch-to-completions. That comment suggested that
> > the next-completion action must be called inside
> > minibuffer-completion-help but IMO that is not totally correct when
> > completion-auto-select has some of the new values.
> >
> > Please, if anyone could review,correct and push I would be very
> > grateful.
>
> Do you mean that you fixed the problem reported in bug#54374?
I have no idea about bug#54374 I will check when I have some time.

> I hope Philip could help to verify that your patch works
> smoothly with the new features completion-auto-select
> and completion-wrap-movement.
Actually I use both... completion-auto-select and
completion-wrap-movement

==========================================

What is annoying for me is that this behavior is limited to TAB and
backtab... I would like to have this same behavior for any interactive
call to next/previous-completion (for example when using arrows or
n/p). I tried this:

In simple.el I changed previous-completion for this:

(defun previous-completion (n)
  "Move to the previous item in the completion list.
With prefix argument N, move back N items (negative N means move
forward)."
  (interactive "p")
  (funcall-interactively next-completion (- n)))

And then in next-completion I changed:

(member (this-command-keys) '("\t" [backtab]))

for this:

(called-interactively-p 'any)

But the second one always return false when using
previous-completion... like ignoring the funcall-interactively... Is
this a issue or intended??

Alternatively I could use:

(memq this-command '(next-completion previous-completion))

But that may be like hiding the called-interactively-p issue under the
carpet if it is an issue.

Best,
Ergus.