On 05.03.2020 14:30, João Távora wrote:
> And when they use that "out", and the program behaves randomly, they'll
> get annoyed, file confusing bug reports, etc. Why would we want that?
>
>
> Any of those things are better than the feeling of being trapped in a
> UI.
First: I disagree with that assessment.
Second: trapped by the UI or not, we are still limited by what values
the program that called completing-read is prepared to handle.
Of course. What I'm saying it that there may be completing-read
that may benefit from an informed exit with something not in the
completion list. Calculating a completion list is fickle and often
it fails by scarceness.
I mean... if your idea of an "out" is to give it a "finger-contorting"
binding and a secret password, of course that's unlikely to cause many
problems.
Yep, that's my idea. Or a C-u to your icomplete-fido-exit would do just fine,
too. Assume "secret password" is you being funny.
I don't know how (or why) to add instructions to the docstring for
something that we advise against doing, though. What phrasing to use, etc.
Well, I don't advise against it, you do. I just want to give users
a better library. But if you're fine with C-u.
> Well, as I said I do remember binding M-j to it for this specific
> circumstance, but that's before your fix (which I am still to try out).
Please do when you have the time.
Sure.
And also, here's a thought: anytime you feel like using
'exit-minibuffer' to counter the REQUIRE-MATCH=t argument, that should
probably be accompanied by a patch to the caller function to change that
argument to nil.
Sure, time-permitting, of course. But again, not that the changing of
the argument might _not_ be the fix. I expect the real fix in those
situations to be about the computation of the allowed completions.
Those are probably more complex fixes.