GNU bug report logs - #26661
compile, shell etc. should use bash-completion !

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 26661 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, szermatt <at> gmx.net, Bhavin Gandhi <bhavin7392 <at> gmail.com>, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Subject: bug#26661: compile, shell etc. should use bash-completion !
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:15:30 -0700

Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> 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.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.