[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: User-Interface at SCRC-TENEX
- Subject: completing read
- From: Dan Gerson <DanG at SCRC-TENEX>
- Date: Fri ,12 Mar 82 16:39:00 EDT
- Cc: Bug-zwei at SCRC-TENEX
I think that <return> should not complete; if I want completion, I can type
<altmode>, or <end> depending upon what I want to do.
An example of how <return> currently screws users is if they want to
create a new buffer with a name which may be completed to an existing
name. Say I want a buffer named "B", not BUFFER-n. After I blew up
MMcM told me I could type c-<return>. Now, c-<return> isn't documented
in any of the usual places, neither from the help message for completing
read, nor from Describe Command, since c-<return> is
COM-COMPLETE-AND-EXIT just the same as <return>. COM-COMPLETE-AND-EXIT
does a special check to see if the control bit was set. Bletch.
Isn't it more consistant for <return> to mean exit, <end> to mean complete
and exit if unique, and <altmode> to mean complete?