[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I assume my original bug is still open, though?
>>
>> I thought I answered that. If you prefer physical paths, use `set -o
>> physical' to force them.
>
> I'm not sure I understand. Whether I want to use logical paths or not
> seems independent of whether or not the command I'm currently typing
> only respects physical paths. So if I don't want to set -o physical, ls
> completion like in my original mail should still be consistent, right?
> What am I missing?
> $ ls ..
> y
> $ ls ../<Tab>
> f x
But bash doesn't know whether or not the command only respects physical
paths. You have to tell it, and `set -o physical' is the way to do that.
If you're objecting to the set of programmable completions available for
`ls', you could make a case that bash should provide, as part of the
programmable completion framework, some option to force physical paths.
However, it currently does not, and it's reasonably easy to write a
completion function to save and restore the value of `set -o physical'
while setting it the way you desire.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
Live Strong. No day but today.
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
_______________________________________________
Bug-bash mailing list
Bug-bash@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash
