Pierre Courtieu <pierre.court...@cnam.fr> 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"

   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.


ProofGeneral-devel mailing list

Reply via email to