-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remember prescient filtering for selectrum-repeat #319
Comments
@raxod502 Maybe we could completely abandons this command for the time being? I don't think it adds much and mabye it gives to much room for potential problems with a lot of edge cases. Alternatively we could make the last input available via some other means, for example we could look into integrating it with the general idea of input history (#185 ). |
Hmm, it adds a lot IMO since its way quicker than creating occur buffers. it's analogous to helm's restore candidates/status which was C-c h r iirc. But I'm new to this stuff so maybe use habits change. I was thrilled to find it ;) |
I would rather ban it instead of adding complexity and a dependency to prescient. Alternatively consider moving it to prescient-selectrum? And you can always access the command/minibuffer history or wouldn't that work? |
So you use this mainly to restore searches I assume? If you use embark you can quickly create a static buffer of your current results maybe that would be an alternative. |
@clemera @rileyrg In the context of consult, there was also the feature request for something like
|
I mostly agree, the only benefit I see that you don't have to think of it ahead of time. With the repeat functionality you can always restore the last matches after you quit. |
@clemera I agree. But in the context of consult, I still reject it because of the immense complexity associated with a potential consult-resume/consult-repeat command. |
Something like a occur buffer for the last session would be nice. Maybe one could setup |
@clemera Oh this sounds like a great idea! Maybe this could be offered by Embark by default! I only wonder about the efficiency/slowdown of that, but it shouldn't be too bad? Please create an Embark issue for that! |
@clemera Does it make sense to remove selectrum-repeat, if we have embark-repeat now? |
I certainly wouldn't object to removing |
I use selectrum repeat. I don't use embark. It's very useful. But, I guess I can try embark again. |
We don't have embark-repeat yet. This had to be reverted again for various reasons. However I think it is perfectly reasonable to remove certain features from selectrum as long as they fit better elsewhere in a completion-system agnostic way. |
I agree as long as the features aren't part of the default completion API (like for example completion-in-region which is the only place we currently have an overlap I think). As I see it Selectrum tries to provide a better UI for the default completion API so we should cover it completely with the new Selectrum like UI. |
Sure, the completion ui should be fully covered. I consider this repeat command or the history/input history enhancements we discussed as more advanced features, which may be served better elsewhere. It should be decided on a case by case basis. |
This is nice but would be much nicer if it remembered the prescient filter options - as it is I need to re-enable regexp with M-s r for example. Not sure where to raise this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: