Pierre Courtieu <[email protected]> writes:
I agree with the idea, but should we really modify
completion-ignored-extensions by ourselves?
That's the usual practice. Here emacs -q -no-site-file gives
completion-ignored-extensions is a variable defined in `C source code'.
Its value is
(".o" "~" ".bin" ".lbin" ".so" ".a" ".ln" ".blg" ".bbl"
".elc" ".lof" ".glo" ".idx" ".lot" ".svn/" ".hg/" ".git/"
".bzr/" "CVS/" "_darcs/" "_MTN/" ".fmt" ".tfm" ".class"
".fas" ".lib" ".mem" ".x86f" ".sparcf" ".fasl" ".ufsl" ".fsl"
".dxl" ".pfsl" ".dfsl" ".p64fsl" ".d64fsl" ".dx64fsl" ".lo"
".la" ".gmo" ".mo" ".toc" ".aux" ".cp" ".fn" ".ky" ".pg"
".tp" ".vr" ".cps" ".fns" ".kys" ".pgs" ".tps" ".vrs" ".pyc"
".pyo")
Is it not considered a
user preference? Some people dislike hiding files at all.
Those people must then switch off the effects of
completion-ignored-extensions on a different level, so they won't
even notice if we add another two elements.
Bye,
Hendrik
_______________________________________________
ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
