<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On May 15, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Allan Odgaard wrote:</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">On 14. May 2007, at 16:20, Thomas Aylott (subtleGradient) wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Then we also only need one command, rather than a command per bundle (or per scope, as it seems is currently the case). So advantages: 1) only one command, not a command per bundle/scope 2) simpler code to read the list (no file I/O / plist parsing) 3) not going to be a problem for the user to update completions for bundles not in ~/Library 4) the completions do not poison the normal ⎋ completion carpus Disadvantages: 1) the completions you setup for this command are not available via ⎋ </BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I agree that if we do it with the environment variable we should be able to have a single simple command. Then anything that requires a different list of completions can have a separate completion command or could simply inject values into that environment variable. CSS and Ruby both have more complex completion commands. HTML isn't a great example of how this should work since the completions list is really crappy. But CSS is a great example of how it should work. There's a single definite list of completions for each scope. The list of escape completions and menu completions should be the same. </BLOCKQUOTE> Another way to achieve getting the same list of completions also on ⎋ is by setting a completionCommand for the scope, which just returns the list from the environment (filtered to only contain items with TM_CURRENT_WORD as prefix).</BLOCKQUOTE><DIV> </DIV><DIV>oh carp! why didn't I think of that?!</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I hate the thought of duplicating lists for both escape completions and menu completions. But I guess that gives us the option of having a different list for each. HTML is a good example of things you'd want in the menu but not the escape list. </BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I think just considering the two types of completions different is the best for now. This is also what I do most of the time when working, i.e. ⎋ is for just repeating something I did a few lines ago, where ⌥⎋ is “go hunt (in the “standard library”) for something that I don’t want to type out myself”. </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Yes! That is a great standard to go for.</DIV><DIV>Let's standardize on that concept and we'll be much better off.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">But I agree that there is overlap, but I think we should tackle this problem when we have 2.x out with an actual completion infrastructure, then TM could do the splicing of completion lists if requested on the various gestures used to call upon completion. </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><DIV> </DIV><DIV>Just be sure to have your source code hosted online somewhere with instructions on how to complete 2.0 incase aliens attack or something.</DIV><DIV> <DIV> thomas Aylott — subtleGradient — CrazyEgg — sixteenColors</DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>