Re: VOTE: Changing completions-common-part face's default

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 07.11.2019 16:44, João Távora wrote:

> > > It seems to be more than "feeling".  Have you asked yourself why the
> > > whole industry seems to does it differently (i.e. with bold or some
> > > other contrasting color)?
> > I'm assuming that's rhetorical.
>
> It wasn't. Assume you have asked yourself that, what answer did you
> arrive at?

Some guesses regarding a different UI that I posted earlier. Or user 
expectations correlating to the current understanding of easy-to-use.

There are modern UI trends that are objectively bad, you know. Like the 
proliferation of dark-background themes (especially by default), or 
mixing light-on-dark with dark-on-light in the same theme without regard 
for contrast levels.

> > The idea is that one would really need to find out why a given string is
> > among the matches very rarely. Maybe once of twice, and they'll simply
> > trust the completion engine after that. And for a one-off task, one
> > might as well squint a little.
>
> squinting is bad, mkay?

Maybe.

> But it's interesting you point that out, because it allows me
> to think why I want this:  one of the inherent characteristics of "flex"
> is precisely that it can't be "trusted" 100%.  It makes educated guesses,
> hopefully very good ones, but sometimes fails, so the user double-checks
> via the highlighting.

I don't understand this. flex is deterministic. Which part exactly 
cannot be trusted?

> > BTW, speaking of backward compatibility, some of the changes in face
> > placement you proposed would break company-capf's implementation of the
> > 'match' action.
>
> I can make a patch for that, if you explain what happens.

You wrote the current code yourself, actually.

> If it's the
> decision where to put company's emphasis, just put it wherever
> completions-emphasis is.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Company highlights the common part, 
not simply whatever part completion style chooses to highlight.