David Edmondson <d...@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. l...@metapensiero.it | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929. _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch