Hi guys, sometimes I try something new to compare with already used packages, this weekend I wanted to try Eglot, however, I ran into a number of problems. One of them is autocomplete.

For example, when I write in vue, I want to autocomplete a watch function. This function is available in the following packages

import { watch } from 'vue';
import { watch } from 'fs';
import { watch } from 'fs/promises'
... etc

But when I use autocomplete in eglot I only see the first candidate - importing from the fs package. Is there any possibility or workaround to display all possible candidates?

Example of autocomplete with eglot

https://preview.redd.it/tlgtg5imw43c1.jpg?width=2930&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f0cd2ff1b6733ec26021b77b6e5e392f26921df

Example of autocomplete with lsp-mode

https://preview.redd.it/rcntp2vow43c1.jpg?width=1224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a246d790c47b4d48a3fba5e5f1cb361841eccc02

I also know that lsp-mode in conjunction with corfu has a similar problem, but it is impossible to solve it there as the authors of both packages think that the problem is not on their side 😅 Is the situation with eglot the same?

  • hvis@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Would you consider changing this, since this way of deduplication in the frontend is quite inefficient?

    I simply consider it part of the requirements (see the other message). And there has been some effort made to ensure that the annotation/kind functions are only called when equal strings are encountered.

    Indeed, when the list is long deduplication does show up on the graph, but the impact also depends on the shape of the data, and there probably are some untapped code optimizations still.

    Deduplicating in the backend is not difficult, all that is needed is adding a suffix like (1), (2), (3), …

    I’m not sure this is very easy (e.g. for LSP clients), and in general it would require a scan across all completions of comparable complexity. Also, showing method overloads with suffixes like 1/2/3 would look rather odd, I think.