Subject: bug#65348: INITIAL-INPUT in completing-read repeats same entry twice consecutively

From: Christopher Dimech <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 14:07:07 +0200

> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:40 PM
> From: "Eli Zaretskii" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [External] :  bug#65348: INITIAL-INPUT in completing-read repeats same entry twice consecutively
>
> > From: Christopher Dimech <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
> >  <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
> >  <[email-masked]>, Drew Adams <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:21:40 +0200
> >
> > Eli, there needs to be some clarification.
>
> I think the situation is clear, you (not necessarily you personally)
> are just splitting hair and desperately looking for problems where
> there are none.
>
> > What is the situation exactly ? Is the use of nil for INITIAL-INPUT
> > consistent with the future plan about INITIAL-INPUT ?  Having the ability
> > to prefill the minibuffer with a collection entry is perfectly reasonable
> > expectation for people to use.
>
> There are no plans to remove INITIAL-INPUT, if that's what you are
> asking.  We cannot possibly remove it, ever.  The argument is not
> deprecated; its _use_ is "deprecated" (a.k.a. "discouraged"), that's
> all.

INITIAL-INPUT is basically meant for prefilling the minibuffer with an entry.
Do not see anything to encourage or discourage.  Perhaps renaming it would be
more appropriate to describe what actually happens ?

> There's no problem here.

Then there is no problem.