OK then. Cheers, P.C.
2011/3/29 Hendrik Tews <[email protected]>: > 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 > _______________________________________________ ProofGeneral-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
