RE: Ordering of command completions

[Drew Adams]

> the vast majority of noise on M-x comes from packages
> distributed with Emacs.

Just what noise are we talking about?

Are you referring to the fact that there can be many commands
that match your minibuffer input?  If so, then the answer
(IMHO) is better completion behavior.  Packages such as
Icicles and Helm let you narrow things down quickly.

> > But if we had this mechanism, then `M-x m<TAB>' would only
> > complete to things that are potentially useful in the current
> > buffer (or globally), which would be very nice.

OK, but it might be better to put that the other way around.
Emacs should exclude only candidates that it is *sure* are
not appropriate in the current context (which might involve
more than which buffer is current).

Certainly any command that is bound to a key sequence that
is available in the current context should be a candidate.
(That's a minimum.)
 
> Yes, and with the right completing engine M-x comes to be
> much more effective on terms of efficiency and discoverability.

Yes.