On 1/25/06, Axel Liljencrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2006/1/25, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...] > > Perhaps `complete' could be extended to allow specifying that a > > command takes a command as an argument? A more general mechanism > > might allow specifying a command to run to check for valid > > completions. > > Right now, I'm thinking that an idea proposed long ago by Netocrat > might be the right thing to solve this: One could move the completion > handler into shellscript. If e.g. 'complete --do-complete "ls --col"' > would return all possible completions for 'ls --col' one could > arbtrarily nest completions. This would open up a huge amount of > possibilities.
I don't understand this, and I couldn't find Netocrat's mail in the list archive. The suggestion is to re-implement the builtin `complete' as a fish script? It would be much slower. Can't the same mechanism be implemented as a builtin? I presume the list of valid completions for 'ls --col' would not be defined explicitly? ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
