Re: Inline completion preview

[Alexander Adolf]

João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:

> [...]
>> Indeed. But the complexity I was intending to refer to came with
>> integrating company with other 3rd party packages. Because of comapny's
>> age (it predates some of Emacs's current completion infrastructure),
>> many 3rd party packages have specific company adaptation code. As
>> packages and Emacs evolve, an adaptation or two tend to break with each
>> update. This kept my company config growing and growing.
>
> But you don't _have_ to use that integrations and third party packages,
> do you?  You used it because you wanted to.

I wanted to use those other 3rd party packages with company, so I had to
accept the complexity of my dot-emacs code. Hence, for me the only way
to avoid the complexity in my dot-emacs would have been to not use the
other 3rd party packages, or to not use company, or both.

> [...]
> We should not compare apples to oranges and make decisions
> based on that.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Could you perhaps be so kind to shed
some more light on what you were referring to here?


Many thanks and cheers,

  --alexander