GNU bug report logs -
#67661
30.0.50; *Completions* has started popping up for icomplete-in-buffer
Previous Next
Reported by: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:31:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Fixed in version 30.0.50
Done: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #44 received at 67661 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
> Cc: spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name, juri <at> linkov.net, 67661 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
> 67001 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:13:53 +0100
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> > Once again, the fact that the second TAB shows both completion
> > interfaces is not the problem: as you point out that was how Emacs
> > behaved since long ago. The problem here is that the _first_ TAB does
> > NOT show in-buffer completions.
>
> Yes, but what I pointed out was that the first TAB has been showing both
> interfaces since Emacs 27, just not with this particular recipe.
That's not what I see in Emacs 29. There' the first TAB shows only
the in-buffer completions, and the second TAB pops up the
*Completions* buffer (without removing the in-buffer completions).
> >> If it doesn't make sense for `icomplete-in-buffer` to appear along
> >> with the *Completions* buffer
> >
> > Again, this is not the problem to solve.
>
> Could you explain what you mean here? If this behavior doesn't make
> sense, isn't it worth trying to solve it for all cases, rather than just
> for one specific case?
I don't think I understand what you mean by "one specific case".
Which case, and why is it specific?
Sean reported a regression in behavior under icomplete-in-buffer, so I
looked into the recipe he posted. What I saw was that Emacs 29 shows
the in-buffer completions after the first TAB and adds to that the
*Completions* buffer after the second TAB. By contrast, Emacs 30
shows nothing after the first TAB, and shows both in-buffer
completions and the *Completions* buffer after the second TAB. So my
conclusion was that the regression is the behavior after the first
TAB. If this conclusion is incorrect, please tell what did I miss.
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 183 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.