On 2016-02-17 at 12:43, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 17 February 2016 16:54:15 John L. Ries wrote: > >>> Seriously, when does bash-completion actually help someone on >>> the command line? The only time I notice it is when a pattern is >>> buggy and doesn't let me complete a filename even when it's >>> completely valid. >> >> It apparently doesn't do anything for you or me (but I'm a Korn >> shell user), but I have to assume that at least a few people find >> it useful, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. > > I love it. I am a lousy typist (the list may have noticed). Bash > completion won't complete if I have already made an error, and when > it completes, completes the rest without an error. It is an absolute > godsend. I'm not sure I understand. How is this different from basic tab completion, as opposed to the programmable completion which is provided via the bash-completion package and is being discussed in this thread? I wouldn't want to get by without tab completion either, but programmable completion as I've seen it implemented in packages provided by Debian seems to break some behaviors in the built-in tab completion on which I had come to rely, so I always turn it off on my machines. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature