On 06/25/2008 09:27 PM, David Paleino wrote: > This is how gdb completion is intended to work -- commands have precedence > over > anything else. It's more common doing: > > $ gdb <command in $PATH> > > than > > $ gdb <directory with a name starting with the same letters as [..]> > > I hope you get my point.
Thanks for your quick response. I know what you mean, but IMHO * gdb completion should not completes non existing program name. (e.g. Bash's built-in command names.) * gdb completion should ALSO completes directory names. I agree that executing gdb for command in $PATH is common usage. However it is also common that executing gdb for programs under the current directory. For example, recently I run gdb for traceroute that locally built with a debug symbols as follow: $ apt-get source traceroute [..] $ gdb traceroute-2.0.11/traceroute/traceroute If gdb does not complete directory names, I need to type "traceroute-2.0.11" by hand. It's very inconvenient. Therefore, I think it would be better if gdb completes directory names as well as command names. Regards, -- Morita Sho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Bash-completion-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/bash-completion-devel
