Max Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 06/09/2022 21:34, Max Nikulin wrote: >> Does anyone have an idea why it was necessary to drop completion of stored >> links based >> on their description for the sake of ido? > > I have no idea what is the proper way to enable ido for `org-insert-link'. > Functions and > variables specific to ido were removed from Org. > (ido-everywhere) and (ido-mode) are not enough. > > I tried > > (setq-local completing-read-function #'ido-completing-read) > > and the command broke completing read completely. > > (add-function :override completing-read-function #'ido-completing-read) > > inspired by `ido-everywhere' code broke M-x, but it enabled ido for > `org-insert-link'. > > I believe that descriptions as completion options were removed because ido > signals an > error when nil is passed inside completion list. I consider it as a bug in > ido (at least > in Emacs-27), but even when `completing-read-default' is used, it causes > appearance of > undesired "nil" option. No description is a frequent case for links. > > So I am attaching a patch to restore completion of link targets by their > description, nil > descriptions are filtered out. > > The change is caused by the auto-desc local variable in `org-insert-link', > its usage is > rather strange and confusing currently. Despite with this patch > descriptions are > restored, I believe that logic related to auto-desc should be removed, anyway > it was > broken for 10 years. I am unsure in which thread the next change should be > discussed. > >> P.S. My question is related to the following threads: >> - Carlos Pita. Adding target and custom id links doesn't ask for >> description. Tue, 2 Aug >> 2022 14:44:58 >> -0300. >> https://list.orgmode.org/d99a712c-18d1-4a4f-8093-35a0bfb46...@gmail.com >> - Max Nikulin. Re: Bug: org-store-link uses CUSTOM_ID instead of target >> point. Sat, 6 >> Nov 2021 19:51:29 >> +0700. >> https://list.orgmode.org/e2c807a7-1924-6f08-9e63-4f70aee9d...@gmail.com > > [2. text/x-patch; > 0001-ol.el-Restore-complete-by-description-for-insert-lin.patch]... You don't appear to be getting a lot of feedback on this. However, I think it is important work your doing. I suspect the lack of feedback is partially due to Emacs' completion infrastructure being somewhat confusing, combined with references to ido, which I suspect is one of the less popular completion frameworks these days. . My take on this, which might be completely wrong, is that org-mode should not cater for or support any specific completion framework. Things like ido, icomplete, fido, vertico, corfu, et. al. are something which should be supported in a generic and abstract manner i.e. we just provide minimal necessary code to generate the candidates these systems use. From your description, I think this is what your doing. Perhaps the requirements might become clearer if you also tried other completion frameworks, like fido, icomplete and vertico. I think there has been a fair bit of work in this area in recent versions of Emacs (i.e. Emacs 28). I also quite like packages like vertico, corfu and embark because unlike other frameworks, they work hard to be based on just core Emacs features/functionality and avoid adding new libraries or re-implementing existing functionality in a new library. THis tends to make the smaller and with better core Emacs compatibility (main reason I don't like helm and to a lesser extent, ivy).
