Discussion:
bug#1512: 23.0.60; SPC, TAB during completion do not do word completion, prefix completion
(too old to reply)
Drew Adams
2008-12-08 01:20:06 UTC
Permalink
emacs -Q

1. Suppose that you have a command `g-spot-marks-the-spot', and you
do this, mistakenly typing `c' instead of `s': `M-x g-c SPC'

There are no word completions for `g-c'. However, instead of Emacs
saying "[No match]", many possible partial-completion matches are
shown. SPC no longer provides word completion by default. You no
longer get useful feedback letting you know that you typed the
wrong character.

Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word completion
were available by default: TAB for the former, SPC for the latter.
Partial-completion mode was optional.

This traditional behavior (since the beginning of Emacs) should
remain the default behavior. Users should not have to customize
`completion-styles' just to restore the standard completion.

Those who prefer that SPC perform partial completion should opt in
for it, as before. Now they would also have the choice of customizing
`completion-styles' to include `partial-completion', in addition to
the choice of turning on `partial-completion-mode'.


2. A similar problem arises for prefix (i.e. TAB) completion. If you
have a command named `in-the-final-act' and you type `g' by mistake
instead of `t': `M-x in-g TAB', then instead of Emacs letting you
know that there is no match, so you can delete the `g' and type a
`t', Emacs completes your input to `inverse-add-global-abbrev',
which is confusing and, once you figure things out, requires much
more editing to get you back on track. With multiple partial
completion matches, the problem is compounded.


Please restore the traditional Emacs completion behavior by default.
It provides helpful feedback that lets you quickly correct typos on
the fly. And it is what Emacs users are used to. Users who want
partial completion turned on can customize Emacs to get that.


In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
of 2008-11-24 on LENNART-69DE564
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/g/include
-fno-crossjumping'
Stefan Monnier
2008-12-08 16:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Drew Adams
Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word completion
were available by default: TAB for the former, SPC for the latter.
Define "word completion", please,


Stefan
Drew Adams
2008-12-10 02:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word
completion were available by default: TAB for the former,
SPC for the latter.
Define "word completion", please,
What SPC does in Emacs ..., 20, 21, 22: `minibuffer-complete-word'.
Stefan Monnier
2008-12-12 18:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Drew Adams
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word
completion were available by default: TAB for the former,
SPC for the latter.
Define "word completion", please,
What SPC does in Emacs ..., 20, 21, 22: `minibuffer-complete-word'.
Drew Adams
2008-12-12 23:16:10 UTC
Permalink
From: Stefan Monnier Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:57 AM
Post by Drew Adams
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word
completion were available by default: TAB for the former,
SPC for the latter.
Define "word completion", please,
What SPC does in Emacs ..., 20, 21, 22: `minibuffer-complete-word'.
Stefan Monnier
2008-12-13 04:24:54 UTC
Permalink
That's sufficiently vague that I don't see in what way the current
behavior of SPC doesn't obey it.
Quelle mauvaise foi !
I probably spent more time on word-completion than on pretty much any
other part of minibuffer.el, so believe me I've thought about what is
word completion and my understanding of it is embedded in the current
behavior (which is very similar to partial-completion-mode's behavior).

So, no I am not "de mauvaise foi", I really honestly do not understand
how you want to interpret the above "definition" of word completion in
the context of partial completion. There are many different ways to
interpret it, probably. But none of them seem to match the behavior you
seem to want in your example. So unless you explain to me what behavior
you generally expect (at least with more examples), the only answer
I can give you is "your word completion seem to dislike partial
completion, so you'll need to disable partial completion", which your
report said you did not consider as a good answer.


Stefan
Drew Adams
2008-12-13 16:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Monnier
I probably spent more time on word-completion than on pretty much any
other part of minibuffer.el, so believe me I've thought about what is
word completion and my understanding of it is embedded in the current
behavior (which is very similar to partial-completion-mode's
behavior).
Yes, I was sure you were aware of what "word completion" means (has always meant
in Emacs).
Post by Stefan Monnier
I really honestly do not understand how you want to interpret
the above "definition" of word completion in the context of
partial completion.
Why "in the context of partial completion"? Emacs word completion is not (has
never been) partial completion. That's the point. Emacs word completion (SPC),
just like Emacs prefix completion (TAB) has always had, as part of its behavior,
the display of a [No match] message when it cannot complete a word at a time or
cannot complete a prefix. That's part of what word and prefix completion mean.

The same is true for any particular kind of completion: failure to complete
using that completion method informs you with a message such as [No match].

It is that which you have removed from the default behavior, by automatically
chaining, beyond failure of word and prefix completion, to use partial
completion. Reporting a failed word or prefix completion is (has always been)
part of the behavior of SPC and TAB. The negative feedback that there are no
such completions (word or prefix) is helpful. It lets you correct typos on the
fly, as indicated by the examples I gave.

The bug report was about both word (SPC) and prefix (TAB) completion, with
examples for each. In your mails you consistently ignore TAB and dwell only on
word completion. I've addressed both in each of my mails, but you keep dropping
TAB. This is not about "interpreting" what "word completion" might mean for
Emacs 23. This is about restoring what you call `basic' completion as the
default behavior - that is, restoring the pre-Emacs 23 behavior as the default.
That means restore it for TAB as well as for SPC.
Post by Stefan Monnier
There are many different ways to interpret it, probably.
I'm not looking for new interpretations of "word completion" or its Info
description. I'm not looking for new ways that the existing text might mean
something different "in the context of partial completion". You take word
completion, mix in partial completion, and then ask me about the Info text that
described (and still describes) only word completion - asking what it means when
partial completion gets mixed in. It was never intended to mean anything "in the
context of partial completion".

I'm asking you to take partial completion out of the default behavior - to
restore the traditional behavior by default. That should be perfectly clear from
each of the mails I've sent on this. Pretending to not understand that strains
credulity.
Post by Stefan Monnier
But none of them seem to match the behavior you seem to want in
your example.
My examples are nothing exotic, and the behavior I "seem to want" as the default
behavior for Emacs 23 is simply the behavior of Emacs (20, 21, 22). No automatic
fallback to partial completion when basic completion fails. I've made that
clear; please stop pretending that you don't hear or understand that. The
request is simple: restore the default behavior to the behavior Emacs has always
had.
Post by Stefan Monnier
So unless you explain to me what behavior you generally expect
(at least with more examples),
The behavior I expect as the default behavior is the behavior that everyone
expects: the behavior that Emacs has always had: fail with [No match] when there
is no word completion (for SPC) or no prefix completion (for TAB). Do not
automatically try, after such completion failure, to use partial completion.
Post by Stefan Monnier
the only answer I can give you is "your word completion seem to
dislike partial completion,
"Your word completion"? I don't have my own word completion. _Emacs_ word
completion is not partial completion. Never has been. You've taken something
that was optional and mixed it in with classic (`basic') behavior, changing the
default completion behavior to basic-or-if-that-fails-then-partial. If you claim
that that is still somehow "word completion", then it is "your word completion".
It is certainly not the word completion that Emacs has always known, and which
the manual (still) describes.
Post by Stefan Monnier
so you'll need to disable partial completion", which your
report said you did not consider as a good answer.
It's not about my own use. I don't often use vanilla Emacs completion anyway,
for my own use (I use Icicles). I'm concerned about vanilla Emacs (-Q), not my
use of Emacs. I'm concerned that you have changed the default completion
behavior radically, taking something that was optional for a long time (most
likely with relatively few users) and making it the default.

Just please remove `partial-completion' from the defcustom for
`completion-styles'. Normal Emacs behavior will then be restored as the default
behavior, and any users who truly want the basic-or-if-that-fails-then-partial
completion behavior can customize the option value to (basic partial-completion)
to get what they want.
Drew Adams
2008-12-13 17:36:59 UTC
Permalink
To be more exact, it seems that even what you call `basic' completion is
different from past Emacs behavior.

It is apparently what you call `emacs21' that is closest to traditional Emacs
behavior. This comment in minibuffer.el states that
`completion-emacs22-try-completion' is a misnomer:

;; Merge a trailing / in completion with a / after point.
;; We used to only do it for word completion, but it seems to make
;; sense for all completions.
;; Actually, claiming this feature was part of Emacs-22 completion
;; is pushing it a bit: it was only done in minibuffer-completion-word,
;; which was (by default) not bound during file completion, where such
;; slashes are most likely to occur.

In any case, any of the following are probably close enough to the traditional
behavior, and any of them would be acceptable as the default value of
`completion-styles':

(basic) ; Emacs 23 word and prefix completion
(emacs22) ; Emacs 22 word and prefix completion
(emacs21) ; Emacs 21 word and prefix completion

They all complete a word with SPC and complete a prefix with TAB, signalling [No
match] whenever the word or prefix completion fails.

What's not appropriate is, as is currently done, adding partial-completion into
the mix as the default value of `completion-styles':

(basic partial-completion)

And it would make sense to change the name of `basic' to `emacs23' - it is the
Emacs 23 version of word and prefix completion.
Drew Adams
2008-12-13 17:36:59 UTC
Permalink
To be more exact, it seems that even what you call `basic' completion is
different from past Emacs behavior.

It is apparently what you call `emacs21' that is closest to traditional Emacs
behavior. This comment in minibuffer.el states that
`completion-emacs22-try-completion' is a misnomer:

;; Merge a trailing / in completion with a / after point.
;; We used to only do it for word completion, but it seems to make
;; sense for all completions.
;; Actually, claiming this feature was part of Emacs-22 completion
;; is pushing it a bit: it was only done in minibuffer-completion-word,
;; which was (by default) not bound during file completion, where such
;; slashes are most likely to occur.

In any case, any of the following are probably close enough to the traditional
behavior, and any of them would be acceptable as the default value of
`completion-styles':

(basic) ; Emacs 23 word and prefix completion
(emacs22) ; Emacs 22 word and prefix completion
(emacs21) ; Emacs 21 word and prefix completion

They all complete a word with SPC and complete a prefix with TAB, signalling [No
match] whenever the word or prefix completion fails.

What's not appropriate is, as is currently done, adding partial-completion into
the mix as the default value of `completion-styles':

(basic partial-completion)

And it would make sense to change the name of `basic' to `emacs23' - it is the
Emacs 23 version of word and prefix completion.
Stefan Monnier
2008-12-14 02:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Drew Adams
Why "in the context of partial completion"? Emacs word completion is
not (has never been) partial completion. That's the point.
That's your interpretation. The current interpretation is that SPC is
a variant of TAB which works similarly except that it stops completion
at a word boundary and adds a - or a SPC if that can enable completion.
This allows SPC to obey completion-styles.
Your interpretation basically implies that SPC can't obey
completion-styles.
Post by Drew Adams
Emacs word completion (SPC),
just like Emacs prefix completion (TAB) has always had, as part of its
behavior, the display of a [No match] message when it cannot complete
a word at a time or cannot complete a prefix. That's part of what word
and prefix completion mean.
To me the above tells me you don't want partial completion. So turn
it off. That's what completion-styles is for. I changed the default
on purpose.


Stefan
Stefan Monnier
2008-12-14 21:32:31 UTC
Permalink
tag 1512 +wontfix
thanks
which is what the default behavior should still be.
I made it clear we disagree on this.


Stefan
Emacs bug Tracking System
2008-12-17 06:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Monnier
tag 1512 +wontfix
bug#1512: 23.0.60; SPC, TAB during completion do not do word completion, prefix completion
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
Post by Stefan Monnier
thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Don Armstrong
(administrator, Emacs bugs database)
Drew Adams
2008-12-14 09:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Why "in the context of partial completion"? Emacs word completion is
not (has never been) partial completion. That's the point.
That's your interpretation.
My "interpretation" is just (1) what the doc says and (2) what the behavior has
always been. There is nothing interpretative in that. Nothing new and nothing
Drew in it.
Post by Stefan Monnier
The current interpretation is that SPC is a variant of TAB
which works similarly except that it stops completion at a
word boundary and adds a - or a SPC if that can enable completion.
The "current interpretation"? The doc has not changed - where is this new
interpretation? You changed the default behavior and you invent a new
interpretation accordingly. OK. But that's not what the doc says, and that's not
what the behavior has always been. It's your behavior and your interpretation.

Like our dear King George W, you are The Decider, and you can redefine red as
blue. Can't argue with that, except to say that red is not really blue, even if
you rename it so.
Post by Stefan Monnier
This allows SPC to obey completion-styles. Your interpretation
basically implies that SPC can't obey completion-styles.
No. My "interpretation" is only what the doc says. And that does not describe
the current default behavior.

It's one thing (and a good thing) to extend the possible behaviors of SPC and
TAB to alternatives. Neither I nor the existing doc "imply that SPC can't obey
`completion-styles'". The doc needs to describe the default behavior, and it
does not describe the behavior of the current default value of
`completion-styles'. It describes what the behavior has always been before,
which is what the default behavior should still be.

Partial completion using SPC does not, as the doc says SPC should, "Complete up
to one word from the minibuffer text before point". Instead, it completes _all_
of the partial words of text before point. It completes `g-ca' to `gnus-cache'
(skipping `gnus-jog-cache', BTW) - hardly "up to one word". But you will no
doubt just redefine what "up to one word" means and what it means to complete
the "text before point".

The right thing to do is to keep the standard behavior by default, and keep the
doc as it is, adding that it describes the default behavior but, depending on
customization of `completion-styles', the actual behavior might be different.

If it turns out later that most users prefer the default behavior to become
basic + partial-completion, then we can change it at that time. That's typically
how default behavior changes in Emacs (transient mark mode, font lock,...), and
that's the right way to proceed. Change shouldn't simply be about making Emacs
act like your .emacs by default. A little more conservatism in changing
longstanding default behavior is called for. Be liberal adding new and
experimental optional features, but be conservative about changing the default
behavior.
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Emacs word completion (SPC), just like Emacs prefix completion
(TAB) has always had, as part of its behavior, the display of
a [No match] message when it cannot complete a word at a time
or cannot complete a prefix. That's part of what word and
prefix completion mean.
To me the above tells me you don't want partial completion.
Not as the default behavior, no. I have nothing against it being an option, as
it has always been. What is wrong with that? You have not given one argument why
we should not keep the long-standing behavior as the default. You made a
significant change without the least justifying argument. Proof by
pontification?
Post by Stefan Monnier
I changed the default on purpose.
Yes, there has never been any doubt of that. That's not an argument why the
change is a good idea. It's your idea, sure, but why is it a good one for Emacs?
Have many users been asking for partial-completion as the default behavior? It's
been available for years. I don't see a push for it as the default, except from
you.

I gave reasons why it is a bad choice as default, showing examples of confusing
(even baffling) behavior and behavior that slows down simple typo correction.
You neither address my arguments nor provide any arguments in favor of your
change.

You summarily reject any objection to your change, just as you did when I
objected to the change in default behavior for C-x C-f from lax completion to
confirmed completion. No argument, no rebuttal to reasons given, just the simple
words "You're wrong." Fortunately, in that case others brought up the same
objection later, in a different thread, you discussed the matter a bit, and
ultimately compromised. There were not more or different arguments than those I
had already given; there were only more voices.
Drew Adams
2008-12-14 09:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Why "in the context of partial completion"? Emacs word completion is
not (has never been) partial completion. That's the point.
That's your interpretation.
My "interpretation" is just (1) what the doc says and (2) what the behavior has
always been. There is nothing interpretative in that. Nothing new and nothing
Drew in it.
Post by Stefan Monnier
The current interpretation is that SPC is a variant of TAB
which works similarly except that it stops completion at a
word boundary and adds a - or a SPC if that can enable completion.
The "current interpretation"? The doc has not changed - where is this new
interpretation? You changed the default behavior and you invent a new
interpretation accordingly. OK. But that's not what the doc says, and that's not
what the behavior has always been. It's your behavior and your interpretation.

Like our dear King George W, you are The Decider, and you can redefine red as
blue. Can't argue with that, except to say that red is not really blue, even if
you rename it so.
Post by Stefan Monnier
This allows SPC to obey completion-styles. Your interpretation
basically implies that SPC can't obey completion-styles.
No. My "interpretation" is only what the doc says. And that does not describe
the current default behavior.

It's one thing (and a good thing) to extend the possible behaviors of SPC and
TAB to alternatives. Neither I nor the existing doc "imply that SPC can't obey
`completion-styles'". The doc needs to describe the default behavior, and it
does not describe the behavior of the current default value of
`completion-styles'. It describes what the behavior has always been before,
which is what the default behavior should still be.

Partial completion using SPC does not, as the doc says SPC should, "Complete up
to one word from the minibuffer text before point". Instead, it completes _all_
of the partial words of text before point. It completes `g-ca' to `gnus-cache'
(skipping `gnus-jog-cache', BTW) - hardly "up to one word". But you will no
doubt just redefine what "up to one word" means and what it means to complete
the "text before point".

The right thing to do is to keep the standard behavior by default, and keep the
doc as it is, adding that it describes the default behavior but, depending on
customization of `completion-styles', the actual behavior might be different.

If it turns out later that most users prefer the default behavior to become
basic + partial-completion, then we can change it at that time. That's typically
how default behavior changes in Emacs (transient mark mode, font lock,...), and
that's the right way to proceed. Change shouldn't simply be about making Emacs
act like your .emacs by default. A little more conservatism in changing
longstanding default behavior is called for. Be liberal adding new and
experimental optional features, but be conservative about changing the default
behavior.
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Emacs word completion (SPC), just like Emacs prefix completion
(TAB) has always had, as part of its behavior, the display of
a [No match] message when it cannot complete a word at a time
or cannot complete a prefix. That's part of what word and
prefix completion mean.
To me the above tells me you don't want partial completion.
Not as the default behavior, no. I have nothing against it being an option, as
it has always been. What is wrong with that? You have not given one argument why
we should not keep the long-standing behavior as the default. You made a
significant change without the least justifying argument. Proof by
pontification?
Post by Stefan Monnier
I changed the default on purpose.
Yes, there has never been any doubt of that. That's not an argument why the
change is a good idea. It's your idea, sure, but why is it a good one for Emacs?
Have many users been asking for partial-completion as the default behavior? It's
been available for years. I don't see a push for it as the default, except from
you.

I gave reasons why it is a bad choice as default, showing examples of confusing
(even baffling) behavior and behavior that slows down simple typo correction.
You neither address my arguments nor provide any arguments in favor of your
change.

You summarily reject any objection to your change, just as you did when I
objected to the change in default behavior for C-x C-f from lax completion to
confirmed completion. No argument, no rebuttal to reasons given, just the simple
words "You're wrong." Fortunately, in that case others brought up the same
objection later, in a different thread, you discussed the matter a bit, and
ultimately compromised. There were not more or different arguments than those I
had already given; there were only more voices.

Stefan Monnier
2008-12-14 02:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Drew Adams
Why "in the context of partial completion"? Emacs word completion is
not (has never been) partial completion. That's the point.
That's your interpretation. The current interpretation is that SPC is
a variant of TAB which works similarly except that it stops completion
at a word boundary and adds a - or a SPC if that can enable completion.
This allows SPC to obey completion-styles.
Your interpretation basically implies that SPC can't obey
completion-styles.
Post by Drew Adams
Emacs word completion (SPC),
just like Emacs prefix completion (TAB) has always had, as part of its
behavior, the display of a [No match] message when it cannot complete
a word at a time or cannot complete a prefix. That's part of what word
and prefix completion mean.
To me the above tells me you don't want partial completion. So turn
it off. That's what completion-styles is for. I changed the default
on purpose.


Stefan
Drew Adams
2008-12-13 16:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Monnier
I probably spent more time on word-completion than on pretty much any
other part of minibuffer.el, so believe me I've thought about what is
word completion and my understanding of it is embedded in the current
behavior (which is very similar to partial-completion-mode's
behavior).
Yes, I was sure you were aware of what "word completion" means (has always meant
in Emacs).
Post by Stefan Monnier
I really honestly do not understand how you want to interpret
the above "definition" of word completion in the context of
partial completion.
Why "in the context of partial completion"? Emacs word completion is not (has
never been) partial completion. That's the point. Emacs word completion (SPC),
just like Emacs prefix completion (TAB) has always had, as part of its behavior,
the display of a [No match] message when it cannot complete a word at a time or
cannot complete a prefix. That's part of what word and prefix completion mean.

The same is true for any particular kind of completion: failure to complete
using that completion method informs you with a message such as [No match].

It is that which you have removed from the default behavior, by automatically
chaining, beyond failure of word and prefix completion, to use partial
completion. Reporting a failed word or prefix completion is (has always been)
part of the behavior of SPC and TAB. The negative feedback that there are no
such completions (word or prefix) is helpful. It lets you correct typos on the
fly, as indicated by the examples I gave.

The bug report was about both word (SPC) and prefix (TAB) completion, with
examples for each. In your mails you consistently ignore TAB and dwell only on
word completion. I've addressed both in each of my mails, but you keep dropping
TAB. This is not about "interpreting" what "word completion" might mean for
Emacs 23. This is about restoring what you call `basic' completion as the
default behavior - that is, restoring the pre-Emacs 23 behavior as the default.
That means restore it for TAB as well as for SPC.
Post by Stefan Monnier
There are many different ways to interpret it, probably.
I'm not looking for new interpretations of "word completion" or its Info
description. I'm not looking for new ways that the existing text might mean
something different "in the context of partial completion". You take word
completion, mix in partial completion, and then ask me about the Info text that
described (and still describes) only word completion - asking what it means when
partial completion gets mixed in. It was never intended to mean anything "in the
context of partial completion".

I'm asking you to take partial completion out of the default behavior - to
restore the traditional behavior by default. That should be perfectly clear from
each of the mails I've sent on this. Pretending to not understand that strains
credulity.
Post by Stefan Monnier
But none of them seem to match the behavior you seem to want in
your example.
My examples are nothing exotic, and the behavior I "seem to want" as the default
behavior for Emacs 23 is simply the behavior of Emacs (20, 21, 22). No automatic
fallback to partial completion when basic completion fails. I've made that
clear; please stop pretending that you don't hear or understand that. The
request is simple: restore the default behavior to the behavior Emacs has always
had.
Post by Stefan Monnier
So unless you explain to me what behavior you generally expect
(at least with more examples),
The behavior I expect as the default behavior is the behavior that everyone
expects: the behavior that Emacs has always had: fail with [No match] when there
is no word completion (for SPC) or no prefix completion (for TAB). Do not
automatically try, after such completion failure, to use partial completion.
Post by Stefan Monnier
the only answer I can give you is "your word completion seem to
dislike partial completion,
"Your word completion"? I don't have my own word completion. _Emacs_ word
completion is not partial completion. Never has been. You've taken something
that was optional and mixed it in with classic (`basic') behavior, changing the
default completion behavior to basic-or-if-that-fails-then-partial. If you claim
that that is still somehow "word completion", then it is "your word completion".
It is certainly not the word completion that Emacs has always known, and which
the manual (still) describes.
Post by Stefan Monnier
so you'll need to disable partial completion", which your
report said you did not consider as a good answer.
It's not about my own use. I don't often use vanilla Emacs completion anyway,
for my own use (I use Icicles). I'm concerned about vanilla Emacs (-Q), not my
use of Emacs. I'm concerned that you have changed the default completion
behavior radically, taking something that was optional for a long time (most
likely with relatively few users) and making it the default.

Just please remove `partial-completion' from the defcustom for
`completion-styles'. Normal Emacs behavior will then be restored as the default
behavior, and any users who truly want the basic-or-if-that-fails-then-partial
completion behavior can customize the option value to (basic partial-completion)
to get what they want.
Stefan Monnier
2008-12-13 04:24:54 UTC
Permalink
That's sufficiently vague that I don't see in what way the current
behavior of SPC doesn't obey it.
Quelle mauvaise foi !
I probably spent more time on word-completion than on pretty much any
other part of minibuffer.el, so believe me I've thought about what is
word completion and my understanding of it is embedded in the current
behavior (which is very similar to partial-completion-mode's behavior).

So, no I am not "de mauvaise foi", I really honestly do not understand
how you want to interpret the above "definition" of word completion in
the context of partial completion. There are many different ways to
interpret it, probably. But none of them seem to match the behavior you
seem to want in your example. So unless you explain to me what behavior
you generally expect (at least with more examples), the only answer
I can give you is "your word completion seem to dislike partial
completion, so you'll need to disable partial completion", which your
report said you did not consider as a good answer.


Stefan
Drew Adams
2008-12-12 23:16:10 UTC
Permalink
From: Stefan Monnier Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:57 AM
Post by Drew Adams
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word
completion were available by default: TAB for the former,
SPC for the latter.
Define "word completion", please,
What SPC does in Emacs ..., 20, 21, 22: `minibuffer-complete-word'.
Stefan Monnier
2008-12-12 18:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Drew Adams
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word
completion were available by default: TAB for the former,
SPC for the latter.
Define "word completion", please,
What SPC does in Emacs ..., 20, 21, 22: `minibuffer-complete-word'.
Drew Adams
2008-12-10 02:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Monnier
Post by Drew Adams
Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word
completion were available by default: TAB for the former,
SPC for the latter.
Define "word completion", please,
What SPC does in Emacs ..., 20, 21, 22: `minibuffer-complete-word'.
Stefan Monnier
2008-12-08 16:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Drew Adams
Prior to Emacs 23, both regular prefix completion and word completion
were available by default: TAB for the former, SPC for the latter.
Define "word completion", please,


Stefan
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...