> This is the completion-ignored-extensions feature at work. > .pdf is ignored; .ps is not, because (the idea is) that's a language > people sometimes edit. > > In fact, nearly all .ps files are generated by programs, just as .pdf > files are. Should we add .ps to completion-ignored-extensions?
There are not many reasons to treat .ps differently than .pdf nowadays. So I think the question is whether to add them both to completion-ignored-extensions or to remove them both from it. I want to remind that completion-ignored-extensions is used also by dired to display files with these extensions in a different face. There is actually no problem to have .ps and .pdf files name displayed differently than other files, but what is bad is that dired-x uses completion-ignored-extensions to omit files from dired buffers. .ps, .pdf and .dvi files contain the resulting material that users very likely may want to view via external programs calling a shell command on them. So removing them from the dired buffer is not a good choice. Omitting the files in dired-x is controlled by the variable dired-omit-extensions created from the value of completion-ignored-extensions. I suggest to remove .pdf and .dvi from the default value dired-omit-extensions. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
