branch: externals/mct
commit 2ae90387c635cd961bee2aeede7c4efa8dcc0bd0
Author: Protesilaos Stavrou <i...@protesilaos.com>
Commit: Protesilaos Stavrou <i...@protesilaos.com>
Update manual about MCT's goal; Vertico comparison
---
README.org | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/README.org b/README.org
index 41bb7354bd..0100487137 100644
--- a/README.org
+++ b/README.org
@@ -759,9 +759,22 @@ preview the candidate at point. All we need to enable it
in the
:END:
#+cindex: Alternatives to MCT
+In the grand scheme of things, it may be helpful to think of MCT as
+proof-of-concept on how the default Emacs completion can become more
+expressive. MCT's value rests in its potential to inspire developers to
+(i) patch Emacs so that its out-of-the-box completion is more
+interactive, and (ii) expose the shortcomings in the current
+implementation of the =*Completions*= buffer, which should again provide
+an impetus for further changes to Emacs. Otherwise, MCT is meant for
+users who can tolerate the status quo and simply want a thin layer of
+interactivity for minibuffer completion, in-buffer completion, and their
+intersection with the Completions' buffer.
+
Like MCT, these alternatives provide a thin layer of functionality over
-the built-in infrastructure. They all make for a natural complement to
-the standard Emacs experience (also
[[#h:03227254-d467-4147-b8cf-2fe05a2e279b][Extensions]]).
+the built-in infrastructure. Unlike MCT, they are not constrained by
+the design of the =*Completions*= buffer and concomitant functionality.
+They all make for a natural complement to the standard Emacs experience
+(also [[#h:03227254-d467-4147-b8cf-2fe05a2e279b][Extensions]]).
+ [[https://github.com/minad/vertico][Vertico]] by Daniel Mendler :: this is a
more mature and feature-rich
package with a large user base and a highly competent maintainer.
@@ -776,7 +789,7 @@ the standard Emacs experience (also
[[#h:03227254-d467-4147-b8cf-2fe05a2e279b][E
the completions' buffer without inputting any character (so without
narrowing the list), there will be a noticeable delay before the
buffer is rendered. This is mitigated in MCT by the requirement for
- ~mct-minimum-input~, though the underlying mechanics remain in tact.
+ ~mct-minimum-input~, though the underlying mechanics remain intact.
In terms of the interaction model, the main difference between Vertico
and MCT is that the former uses the minibuffer by default and shows
@@ -792,12 +805,17 @@ the standard Emacs experience (also
[[#h:03227254-d467-4147-b8cf-2fe05a2e279b][E
buffer is configurable (as with all buffers---though refer, in
particular, to ~mct-display-buffer-action~).
- Vertico also supports buffer display, though only for the placement of
- the buffer. There is an extension for that in the git repository
- called =vertico-buffer.el=. Note, however, that the common combination
- of Vertico and Embark means that users can always place the list of
- completion candidates in a standalone buffer by means of Embark's
- collect/export facilities.
+ Vertico has official extensions which can make it work exactly like
+ MCT without any of MCT's drawbacks. These extensions can also expand
+ Vertico's powers such as by providing granular control over the exact
+ style of presentation for any given completion category (e.g. display
+ Imenu in a separate buffer, show the ~switch-to-buffer~ list
+ horizontally in the minibuffer, and present ~find-file~ in a vertical
+ list---whatever the user wants).
+
+ All things considered, there is no compelling reason why one may
+ prefer MCT over Vertico in terms of the available functionality:
+ Vertico is better.
+ [[https://github.com/karthink/elmo][Elmo - Embark Live MOde for Emacs]] by
Karthik Chikmagalur :: this
package is best described as a sibling of MCT both in terms of its
