|
|
|
|
|
by gen220
2118 days ago
|
|
> CoC's autocompletion is much more advanced than Ale I thought that both are pass-throughs to other completion engines, so isn't this a moot comparison? (maybe coc integrates the completion engine, but it doesn't implement a new one, right?). I use deoplete, but I'm not married to it (it's kind of slow when you have a big file). let g:deoplete#enable_at_startup = 1
call deoplete#custom#option({
\'auto_complete_delay': 1000,
\'sources': {
\ '_': ['ale', 'buffer'],
\ 'py': ['ale'],
\}
\})
If so, isn't the completion experience is strictly a function of the completion engine you're passing coc/ale into (ux), and the binaries that you're passing into coc/ale (completion options)? |
|