On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:51:54 +0900, Morita Sho wrote: > 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.
It ALSO completes directory names. But commands in $PATH have precedence, so I can't do anything about this. > 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. GDB *does* complete directory names. The unfortunate case is having a directory name which starts the same as a $PATH command. > Therefore, I think it would be better if gdb completes directory names as > well as command names. Again, it does. Just that command names take precedence. David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bash-completion-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/bash-completion-devel
