Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-07-02 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Wed 2020-06-24 21:44:01 +1000, Peter Wang wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:22:50 +0200 Lukasz Stelmach > wrote: >> It was <2020-06-20 sob 12:53>, when Reto wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:40:49PM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote: >> >> Having "setup" in the set requires entering three

Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-24 Thread Peter Wang
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:22:50 +0200 Lukasz Stelmach wrote: > It was <2020-06-20 sob 12:53>, when Reto wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:40:49PM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote: > >> Having "setup" in the set requires entering three instad of two characters > >> for "search". Since "setup" is

Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-23 Thread Ralph Seichter
* Tomi Ollila: > You're wrong and I am right... ;) "I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you." (Dr. M. Sayer) :-) > note that I also have no notmuch-* commands in my PATH, so 'notm' > expands to 'notmuch ' ! \o/ FTW ;) I like aliases like "nme" for "Notmuch in Emacs". -Ralph

Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-23 Thread Tomi Ollila
On Sat, Jun 20 2020, Ralph Seichter wrote: > * Tomi Ollila: > >> imo.the completions should primarily provide convenience to the >> interactive user, to see all possible options (also those >> seldomly.used) one can use help and namual pages... > > "Can use" being the operative term, not "should

Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-22 Thread Lukasz Stelmach
It was <2020-06-20 sob 12:53>, when Reto wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:40:49PM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote: >> Having "setup" in the set requires entering three instad of two characters >> for "search". Since "setup" is rearly used it makes little sense to have >> it in the set and cripple

Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-20 Thread Ralph Seichter
* Tomi Ollila: > imo.the completions should primarily provide convenience to the > interactive user, to see all possible options (also those > seldomly.used) one can use help and namual pages... "Can use" being the operative term, not "should have to use". I would not want completion to omit

Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-20 Thread Tomi Ollila
On Sat, Jun 20 2020, reto@labrat.space wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:40:49PM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote: >> Having "setup" in the set requires entering three instad of two characters >> for "search". Since "setup" is rearly used it makes little sense to have >> it in the set and cripple

Re: [PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-20 Thread Reto
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:40:49PM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote: > Having "setup" in the set requires entering three instad of two characters > for "search". Since "setup" is rearly used it makes little sense to have > it in the set and cripple UX for much more frequently used "search". I very

[PATCH] completion: remove "setup" from the list of possible completions

2020-06-19 Thread Łukasz Stelmach
Having "setup" in the set requires entering three instad of two characters for "search". Since "setup" is rearly used it makes little sense to have it in the set and cripple UX for much more frequently used "search". --- completion/notmuch-completion.bash | 2 +- completion/zsh/_notmuch