Community
Participate
Working Groups
I'm using content assist with about all chars as trigger chars to not have to use Ctrl+Space. However, I indentified that some chars (most notably to me: Space) do validate the current proposal while it's not really suitable with my workflow. JDT should offer ability to configure validation character (and ideally recommend some validation triggers according to enablement triggers) to allow better workflows.
Indeed many people seem to be unhappy about how content assist is triggered. I believe a first start at solving this would be a clear definition of what we mean by "trigger". (1) How is computation of proposals triggered? (2) How is selection/insertion of a proposal triggered? In my experience the main confusion is caused when the same keystroke triggers both (2) and (1) at the same time. You seem to be proposing a third question concerning validation, but I'm having difficulties mapping that to the current implementation. Can you explain what you mean by validation? Or is your request actually a duplicate of bug 348857?
In this ticket, I'm focusing on 2. how proposal selection/insertion is triggered. Currently, it seems like there is no way to customise it and that's missing. Sorry for using the term 'validate'. It's erroneous in this context. FYI 'validate' can often be used as a synonymous for 'select' or 'apply' or 'confirm' in Freanch language, so I used it like this but it translate to something totally different in this context. I don't see any particular issue with validation as we know it.
(In reply to Mickael Istria from comment #2) > In this ticket, I'm focusing on 2. how proposal selection/insertion is > triggered. Currently, it seems like there is no way to customise it and > that's missing. > > Sorry for using the term 'validate'. It's erroneous in this context. FYI > 'validate' can often be used as a synonymous for 'select' or 'apply' or > 'confirm' in Freanch language, so I used it like this but it translate to > something totally different in this context. > I don't see any particular issue with validation as we know it. Thanks for confirming. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 348857 ***
