Address completion in Emacs

[David Edmondson]

On Fri, Dec 12 2014, Lele Gaifax wrote:
> David Edmondson <dme at 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.

Understood.

>>> 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'.

I think that we're at cross
purposes. `notmuch-address-selection-function' will use the
`initial-input' as the initial input of the completion, so that's what
it chooses to call the argument. It can't be blamed if whatever is
passed to it is not something that you would consider the initial input.

> 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.
> lele at metapensiero.it  |                 -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.
>
> _______________________________________________
> notmuch mailing list
> notmuch at notmuchmail.org
> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch