Re: simulation of dabbrev-expand

[Adam Spiers <adam@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk>]

Sven Wischnowsky (wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de) wrote:
> 
> Adam Spiers wrote:
> 
> > > > The completion system *should* be handling this for you, but I'm going to
> > > > leave that bug to Sven, [ ... ] 
> > > 
> > > Hm, actually I don't think this is a bug -- at least it is intended
> > > behaviour. Although I admit that I partly did this for performance
> > > reasons. So, should duplicates always be removed or should this be an
> > > option (we're in trouble with `compctl', then -- no more option
> > > letters).
> > 
> > I'd vote for the option er, option ... sorry :-)  No idea what you
> > should do about the option letters, other than using 8-bit-high
> > options ;-)
> 
> This is the non-option implementation because a) I couldn't think of a 
> good option character (if someone has a suggestion and thinks we
> should make this optional, tell me

I think it should be optional.  I also think you should have the
choice of whether to remove all duplicates or just consecutive ones.
What about -1 and -2, or some other funny option characters?