Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting

[Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> +/* Return a message indicating that the maximum number of completions
>> +   has been reached and that there may be more.  */
>> +
>> +const char *
>> +get_max_completions_reached_message (void)
>> +{
>> +  return _("*** List may be truncated, max-completions reached. ***");
>> +}
>
> I'd prefer a different wording:
>
>   (More completions follow; omitted because max-completions exceeded.)
>
> My problem with your wording is two-fold:
>
>   . "may be truncated" can be interpreted to the effect that GDB
>     doesn't know whether truncation really happened; I think it does
>
>   . "reached" is inaccurate; "exceeded" is more accurate
>
> The rest of the change in wording is just to follow the style that I
> frequently see in other applications in similar cases.
>
> The documentation parts are OK (but will need an update if you accept
> the above suggestion).

Actually, the wording is correct for the current implementation.
The patch stops searching when the limit is reached.
It doesn't keep looking for at least one more to see if there are any more.
Is this absolutely critical?  Why?