I have to disagree with you. Seems you have never woked much
with CISCO or similar equipment CLI. Otherwise you would
not argue. Don't reinvent the wheel. There is ony one con-
according to the Luigi - it's not easy to implement it now
in the current code.
On 19 November 2006 13:53, Tzafrir Co
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:20:33PM -0800, Bob Atkins wrote:
>
> Please let me 2nd, 3rd and 4th this request and add an emphatic
> /please!/ Such a change would result in a /_much_/ more efficienct CLI
> that functions in much the same way that Cisco's IOS CLI works and that
> many of us in the
would be just great to have it.
On 18 November 2006 04:20, Bob Atkins wrote:
> Please let me 2nd, 3rd and 4th this request and add an
> emphatic /please!/ Such a change would result in a
> /_much_/ more efficienct CLI that functions in much the
> same way that Cisco's IOS CLI works and that many o
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 11:30:04AM -0700, Dylan VanHerpen wrote:
If the CLI is going to be overhauled anyway, can I seize the
opportunity to suggest a minor enhancement?
Instead of typing:
CLI> iax show channels
or
CLI> ia sh ch
it would be nicer if the C
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
unfortunately, the way the code is now, it is non
trivial to implement tab completion at the middle of the string.
So don't expect this feature any time soon (at least not from me!)
If you are entertaining CLI ideas, how about a more "natural language"
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:10:57PM -0600, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > I am afraid the e = argv[-1] trick is probably something that we need
> > to keep for a while to help old-style handlers, but that is a relatively
> > straightforward, and hopefully sufficiently documented to
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I am afraid the e = argv[-1] trick is probably something that we need
> to keep for a while to help old-style handlers, but that is a relatively
> straightforward, and hopefully sufficiently documented to avoid confusion.
Why do we need this for old style handlers? They never
