bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#18643: 25.0.50; elisp--expect-function-p


From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: bug#18643: 25.0.50; elisp--expect-function-p
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:17:32 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2

On 10/09/2014 07:31 AM, Leo Liu wrote:
It is the false negatives that kill its usefulness in the case of elisp.

I disagree with the word "kill" here. Somewhat diminish, maybe.

For example, (ert-deftest |) and (defun |) no longer have the
completions I need.

These would be trivial to improve.

I'm pretty sure writing a new variable definition is a much less
frequent operation than referring to a variable in a function, or
writing a function call. And code completion is most useful when one is
referring to existing variables and functions.

I won't jump to such conclusions so soon. You are guessing users'
editing habits too much.

In which part? The lower frequency of new definitions is self-evident, I think.

What is hard is having a good algorithm to determine completion types
correctly. Unfortunately what we have has too many false negatives. I'd
much prefer offering multiple candidates instead of showing no
completions and with completion-cycling I can get to most completions in
under a second.

In that case, I guess you'll have to add a user option. `lisp-completion-at-point-uses-context', or something like that.

My bug report is not based on anything other than completion-at-point,

Does that mean my suggestions can't be based on anything else?

the plain/standard emacs completion UI, which is what I use for elisp
for a long while and I am quite content with it. It can be less optimal
for other languages. but for elisp it has worked well in the past.

I've been using it for a while as well, and I wouldn't say it was, or is, perfect.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]