To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
From: Lele Gaifax <lele@metapensiero.it>
Subject: Re: Address completion in Emacs
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:45:47 +0100
Organization: Nautilus Entertainments
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <87vblh829w.fsf@nautilus.nautilus>
References: <87d27p9t0f.fsf@nautilus.nautilus>
	<m24mt1hxoy.fsf@heart-of-gold.hh.sledj.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M+qUkDsKo+eGtsKOP90Fwz2yvE4=
Precedence: list

David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 12 2014, Lele Gaifax wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be more "correct" to pass the unchanged `options' list and
>> the "real" `orig' text as `initial-input' to the customizable function
>> instead?
>
> Would I then have to press TAB twice to get the first result?

No, why? The customizable `notmuch-address-selection-function' would be
free to pass (car options) as the initial-input of `completing-read', if
needed. When using `ido-completing-read', the first option is
pre-selected, so a RET confirms that.

>> I understand that it may be undesiderable to break existing
>> configurations by rectifying the arguments in that way, and in such case
>> could we change the `initial-input' argument name to better reflect the
>> fact that it actually contains one possible candidate instead?
>
> From the perspective of `notmuch-address-selection-function', it _is_
> the `initial-input', as that is what is presented to the user.

IMHO no, it's not: what it receives as `initial-input' is not what the
user actually wrote, but rather just the (somewhat arbitrary) first
candidate address found by `notmuch-address-command'.

thanks&bye, lele.
-- 
nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri
real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad aver paura di chi mi copia.
lele@metapensiero.it  |                 -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.