On Thursday 11 October 2007 16:51:23 Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
> On 11/10/2007 Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good argument to say that people need to have
> > user-friendly hand-holding at the command prompt. If I want to run 'evince
> > somefile.asp' I should be able to. I do
> > I too find the programmable completion very annoying.
>
> And I find them very useful, except where they have bugs (e.g. "sudo
> -e", which should work like 'sudoedit'). IMHO tab-completion should
> complete to what's supposed to be there in most cases, maybe even giving
> hints if there is a
Op maandag 15-10-2007 om 17:46 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Ian
Jackson:
> I too find the programmable completion very annoying.
And I find them very useful, except where they have bugs (e.g. "sudo
-e", which should work like 'sudoedit'). IMHO tab-completion should
complete to what's supposed to
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 17:52 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 17:46 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > So I submit that programmable completions should be off by default.
> >
> As long as it stays on off by default for zsh, where it *always* has
~~~
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 17:46 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So I submit that programmable completions should be off by default.
>
As long as it stays on off by default for zsh, where it *always* has
been context-specific.
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description:
Aaron C. de Bruyn writes ("Restricted tab-completion is annoying"):
> Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and
> firefox popped up and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit 'OK'
> and it saved 'genpdf.asp' into my downloads folder.
I guess it thinks you are trying to execute something and so doesn't
bother showing non-executable files?
Pricey
On 13/10/2007, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think this sucks. I spend a lot of time at the bash prompt and use
> > tab-completion constantly. When you are in b
> I think this sucks. I spend a lot of time at the bash prompt and use
> tab-completion constantly. When you are in bash, I would expect you sorta
> know what you are doing.
I totally forgot my other example until just a few minutes ago when I went to
modify my apt sources list.
sudo -e /etc
Op donderdag 11-10-2007 om 10:03 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Aurélien
Naldi:
> - very smart completion: hostnames after ssh thanks to the content of
> your .ssh/knownhosts (which does not work with more recently added
> hosts as the hostname is no more written explicitely...)
HashKnownHosts no
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:43:15PM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> Agreed. I would love to have a system-wide disable option and/or a
> per-account option.
> For now I'll settle for what Gavin said in his message to the list. Toss
> 'shopt -u progcomp' into your .bashrc
Or stick it in /etc/
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 09:02:05AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> Enough with the madness.
Please keep the Ubuntu code of conduct in consideration when posting to
lists. Inflammatory language doesn't help reach any sort of solution.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss
On 12/10/2007, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So anyone who disliked anything in the system bashrc 10 years should
> > have skipped all updates since?
> >
> > Why do I have to opt out of bug future fixes and improvements just
> > because somebody else prefers their way of tab-complet
> So anyone who disliked anything in the system bashrc 10 years should
> have skipped all updates since?
>
> Why do I have to opt out of bug future fixes and improvements just
> because somebody else prefers their way of tab-completion?
I have to disagree here.
bash has tons of configuration files
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 02:15:07PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 12/10/2007, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 09:07:17AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > > On 12/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:43:1
On 12/10/2007, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 09:07:17AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > On 12/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:43:15PM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > > > > > If I modify them, doesn't
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 09:07:17AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On 12/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:43:15PM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > > > > If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the
> > > > > next updat
On 12/10/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:43:15PM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > > > If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the
> > > > next update to the bash package?
> > >
> > > not if you modify them in your own .bas
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:43:15PM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > > If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
> > > update to the bash package?
> >
> > not if you modify them in your own .bashrc
>
> Yeah--but system-wide I want it off.
> On the hosting server
> > If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
> > update to the bash package?
>
> not if you modify them in your own .bashrc
Yeah--but system-wide I want it off.
On the hosting server I own, I have 4 other admins that would absolutely hate
this.
> sniffing the m
On 11/10/07 23:51, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
> The shortest path to solve usability of this would be to complete
> "restricted" for the first tab, and "all files" for the second. When I
> have file extension corrected, I love unzip to complete only .zip files.
> But this will always be in the way in
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:23:38AM -0700, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
> update to the bash package?
>
No; it is a configuration file, which means dpkg will prompt you whether or
not to replace the file. You can choose not to.
On 11/10/2007 Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> I don't think it's a good argument to say that people need to have
> user-friendly hand-holding at the command prompt. If I want to run 'evince
> somefile.asp' I should be able to. I don't care if the extension is .asp
> .pdf or .mystupidfile.
>
The s
> you can of course modify tab-completion by
> modifying /etc/bash_completion and the files in /etc/bash_completion.d
> that might be what you want to do.
If I modify them, doesn't that mean they will get overwritten by the next
update to the bash package?
> there are lots and lots of reasons to
Try with the following in your ~/.bashrc:
shopt -u progcomp
That turns off Programmable Completion (see the section in bash man
page for more) and leaves you (well, it leaves me) with the "normal"
file-based tab-completion.
Actually, I'm a fan of programmable completion, but I don't like
On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, you hit tab to complete certain commands and filenames. It seems like
> Ubuntu is trying to be helpful by showing you only the things it thinks you
> need.
bash completion isn't an Ubuntu feature specifically - it's a bash
feature
On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok--I'm sorry, but none of what you said made any sense to me.
>
> > I don't see the point why filenames needs to be tab-completed on default, it
> > does it when it's necessary.
>
> I'm asking why tab-completion changed from allowing tab-
Ok--I'm sorry, but none of what you said made any sense to me.
> I don't see the point why filenames needs to be tab-completed on default, it
> does it when it's necessary.
I'm asking why tab-completion changed from allowing tab-completion of EVERY
file to being restricted.
It sounds like you ar
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 08:20 +0800, Joel Bryan Juliano wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and
> firefox popped up and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit
> 'OK' and it saved 'g
On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and firefox
> popped up and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit 'OK' and it saved '
> genpdf.asp' into my downloads folder. I was surprised to find bash
> wouldn't tab-compl
Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and firefox popped up
and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit 'OK' and it saved 'genpdf.asp'
into my downloads folder. I was surprised to find bash wouldn't tab-complete
the filename.
Apparently there is new (newer than dapper) bas
30 matches
Mail list logo
