Re: is it possible to choose a completion engine?

["Tory S. Anderson" <webdev@toryanderson.com>]

Ah! Turns out I rely on the Fast completion more than I realized; I am used to hitting "t p" from the agenda to tag an item with a custom status I've created, as you guessed in your message. But untouched was the type of key-menu I really want to hide when, for example, I hit =C-c a= =org-agenda= and get a menu of agenda options to choose from, or =(org-clock-goto '(4))= and I get a big indexed list of clock items. I don't mind keeping the fast keys, but would love for the big screens of options to go away. The =org-use-fast-todo-selection= and =org-use-fast-tag-selection= variables do not effect the method used for those big index screens, which are the ones I actually care about and would like to use with standard completion.

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> webdev@toryanderson.com (Tory S. Anderson) writes:
>
>> Org currently stands out from my workflow because it does completions its own way, with lists and number/letter keys. It would be nice if I could instead have the benefit of vertico, or helm, or whatever else instead. Org would even benefit from marginalia and embark in some cases. Is there an easy variable I'm missing to make org use completing-reads instead of the indexing thing it does?
>
> This is because you customized your tags/todo keywords to have a quick
> key binding to set. By default, Org uses custom "fast" interface for
> completion in such cases. You can either remove the bindings to
> explicitly set `org-use-fast-tag-selection' and/or
> `org-use-fast-todo-selection' to nil.