On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 01:53:59PM +0200, l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote: [...] > Maybe sometimes completion is not working as it should, nothing is perfect, but globally I think that it saves time more than its wastes. Then just use it and be happy. And just accept that some (me, among others) are happier without :-) Yes, I've tried it. Yes, I think it's technically nifty. But no, it doesn't mesh well with the way I work. Even if it were bug-free, it wouldn't be "my" thing. I live by the command line, and there are roughly two classes of things I do: those I do very often, where history search is just unbeatable, and those I do rarely. For those I have a man page open, sometimes a notebook (in Emacs, but I disgress) to take notes and I proceed slowly. The top of the first class are candidates for automation and scripting. In the first class, I don't need autocompletion, since I know what I'm doing (heck, my muscle memory nearly knows. In the second class, autocompletion is a train wreck waiting to happen: I really *want* to know why each piece is there. The only really useful autocompletion is actually file path autocompletion, and I have that without any extra packages. > It's probably more a conceptual/philosophical approach here ;) For me it isn't. It is an eminently practical issue. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature