Subject: Re: bug#26661: compile, shell etc. should use bash-completion !

From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:15:30 -0700

Kévin Le Gouguec <[email-masked]> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>>> https://github.com/szermatt/emacs-bash-completion/issues/45#issuecomment-706671531
>>
>> I found the comment on that page interesting:
>>
>>    I have to say that I personally find bash-completion a bit hackish
>>    and fragile (by nature) to be something that'd come as part of
>>    standard Emacs, but that's something for Emacs maintainers to decide.
>>
>> So perhaps this should better be part of GNU ELPA for users that want
>> it as optional behavior.
>
> I'd be interested in knowing what makes bash-completion inherently more
> hackish and fragile than say, python.el's native completion?  AFAICT
> both essentially use a dedicated buffer to send completion queries to an
> inferior process.

The comparison should rather be to the existing pcomplete support, I
think.

I suppose it's hackish and fragile because it can break at any time due
to third-party changes outside of our control.  But you're likely to get
a better answer from the author of the emacs-bash-completion package,
who wrote that remark in the first place.