Re: complexity in minibuffer

[Stefan Monnier]

> Yes (but on only)  And those were the functions who now get an optional
> group-fun arg (also often 'if'ed against sometimes only threaded).

I suspect they should get an `md` argument instead (which will include
the `group-function`, of course).

> I think it has to do with the way Juri (or someone else) implemented
> affixation function and annotation function, which was what I was trying
> to touch to experiment with resolution-function ideas. Sometimes as completion
> is represented by a cons (string annotation-prefix annotation-suffix)
> sometimes only a string.  It could be a string always, with properties.
> Or a struct.  But let's leave it at string and never cons.

I don't have a strong opinion here, except that I think it would make
sense to handle `group-function` and `annotation/affixation-function` at
the same place.  This will likely make much more of a difference than
the details of the way those functions are called.  There's a chance it
will let us only use strings (either the actual "raw candidate", or its
pretty-printed rendering) and never need to pass sets of lists
of strings.


        Stefan