On Jan 23, 2008 7:04 AM, Nick Pilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 8:41 PM, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would it help to read command names from the path for binaries first?
> > There may still be man pages for commands that are not installed in
> > the system when the completion files are generated. Maybe then when
> > the user tries to complete this command, Fish should show the
> > generated info and show mark the command as non-existent?
>
> Hm. Having taken a closer look in response to Philip's question, it's
> not a parsing problem at all. I was just testing that using a
> one-character search term, which fish apparently explicitly excludes.
> Is this exclusion really necessary? Even with ~4000 apropos results
> and ~200 commands ('p' and 's' on my system, the largest by a wide
> margin), there's no noticeable delay. Even on a 600 MHz machine,
> there's only about a second's delay with these very long lists.
>
Unfortunatly, that depends heavily on the apropos implementation. Some
apropos implementations are simply a wrapper shellscript around grep
while others are perform a search on multiple binary database files. I
added that specific limitation because doing lookup on a single
character took much too long on some systems, though I don't remember
which ones. One could do some kind of performance test the first time
the completions are used, and store the result in a universal
variable, I guess...
Axel
> --
> -Nick Pilon
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
