[slime-devel] Re: [Fwd: Re: Re: slime.el `slime-expand-abbreviations-and-complete']

[Madhu]

                    [SEE APOLOGIES AT THE BOTTOM!]

* Juho Snellman  <slrner8828.fcm.jsnell at localhost.localdomain> :
| I've never seen any bugs with this before the changes last month. What
| I do is:
|
|  1. Type some characters
|  2. Complete
|  3. If ambiguous, go to step 1

OK I see the difference. After Step 2, When a *Completions* buffer
pops up, I try to "Choose a completion" by clicking on it (or hitting
RET) in that buffer.

This is how I understand emacs completion works. From a UI standpoint,
the choices are already displayed, and the user ought to be able to
select one WITHOUT typing additional characters

With the original unambiguous completion code this is not possible
when the point has been moved to an earlier location. This is a bug as
far as I can see. I believe you haven't seen it because you do not
used Emacs' choose-completion facility

| Well, actually that's what I *would* do if this wasn't broken in CVS
| right now. As it is, the workflow is more like:
|
|  1. Type some characters
|  2. Complete
|  3. If ambiguous try to type some characters. Find that it's useless,
|     since there are no ambiguities at the point
|  4. Switch to the *Completions* window that was opened
|  5. Arrow-key or C-s to the symbol that I want
|  6. Press enter
|  7. Press C-x 0 to close the now useless window that was opened

Ah but this is my normal workflow!  If ambiguous, and the completion
is available at hand, I wish to use emacs to complete it by coosing
it. This is not possible with the original unambigous prefix code.

Personally I dont like typing extra characters where fewer characters
would suffice, but my issue was that Emacs completion facility does
not work with the original behaviour

[...]

|> From a checkout of a few weeks ago, the "bug" was put back, there was
|> no Changelog entry, but I noticed the original buggy behaviour was
|> back. . You can grep for "unambiguous" in slime.el to find if your
|> sources are upto date

^^^ This is incorrect.

| I'm still confused! :-)
|
| % cvs update -p -r HEAD slime.el | grep unambig | wc -l
| 0

You are right and I am at fault.  I should not have restarted this
thread. I think Edi did not check in the changes as I assumed he did,
and I was misled by a sticky version of slime.el.

Sorry!

--
Madhu