Re: (patch) sort cycling completion candidates

[Ted Z. <tz...@li...>]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:32:00 +0100 Antoine Levitt <ant...@gm...> wrote: 

AL> What about the case when s1 and s2 are nil? Shouldn't there be another
AL> (t (< (length c1) (length c2))) at the end of the second cond ? Am I
AL> missing something?

Oops.  I had it in my original patch but Stefan suggested a change
before that line and I accidentally deleted it.  Sorry!

AL> It seems cleaner to sort two times, instead of once with both
AL> predicates, the way it's already done in the code for recently used
AL> completions.

That seems OK to me.

Your patch is cleaner so I'm in favor of using it.

Ted