On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 00:22, Eric M. Ludlam wrote:
> >>> Stuart Popejoy <stuart@...> seems to think that:
> [ ... ]
> >As for `minibuffer-contents', I was wondering: why
> >`read-from-minibuffer' needed to be used with a keymap when
> >`completing-read' with a completion function could work just as well?
> >Using `completing-read' would obviate the need to set "next-action"
> >symbols and such. I've just started trying to implement that as follows:
> >first, call `completing-read' instead of `read-from-minibuffer' in
> [ ... ]
> I will try to answer other parts of this mail later, but for now, I
> will answer this question.
> If you use completing-read, you cannot customize (as far as I know)
> how completions are displayed. You always get the default boring list
> 'o completions. Because tags are based in an environment friendly to
> Emacs, I wanted to experiment with different and interesting ways to
> complete and focus. Semantic 1.4 senator does a good job of
> differentiating tags with the same name. I think there are other ways
> too, and wanted to build an environment where experimentation in this
> area is easy so we can experiment end up with the spiffiest prompt
actually, the code I submitted results in an identical display in the
completion temp buffer as the original code using (minibuffer-contents),
with the exception of the source buffer move-and-highlight, so perhaps
I'm missing something? It uses the same code to format the list as it
focuses, and when I did back to back tests against the orig code in
emacs it was identical.
As for the move-and-highlight, I'm thinking that's just a missing method
call (but again, my knowledge of eieio magic is minimal ... )
Stuart Popejoy <stuart@...>
Pink Sheets LLC