change buffer_complete#caching_current_line from ±5 to ±10

[zhaocai]

as discussed in #388 . I think ±5 is too small.

Also, I think you should raise the rank for buffer_complete because it is mostly related to what you are editing

[Shougo]

Also, I think you should raise the rank for buffer_complete because it is mostly related to what you are editing

What do you think the rank concreatly?

[zhaocai]

It looks to me that the ranks of the sources are not setting up based on some rules. For example, the vim_complete is 300. nesnippet is 8 (if I remember it correctly), buffer_complete is 5. For me, I usually bump up the rank of buffer_complete to 100.

I think maybe there is supposed to be some guideline for the ranks. For example,

• < 0 : discardable, ( like neco-look, )
• 0 : base priority,
• 1 - 10 : if taken too long, ignore.
• 10 - 20 : normal priority,
• 20+ : first priority, cache first

[Shougo]

It looks to me that the ranks of the sources are not setting up based on some rules. For example, the vim_complete is 300. nesnippet is 8 (if I remember it correctly), buffer_complete is 5. For me, I usually bump up the rank of buffer_complete to 100.

I thik the rank(100) is too up. If I set the rank, I think buffer complete candidates will hide other candidates. So, I reject it.

[zhaocai]

I know 100 is too high ( it is just for me personal ) . But I think it should be higher than syntax_complete

[Shougo]

OK. I will change syntax_complete rank.