Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

["andrey mirtchovski" <mirtchovski@gmail.com>]

i sometimes wonder whether the ^F completion stuff wasn't left this
way on purpose, as if to illustrate the futility of (essentially) a
single-node solution in the presence of distributed environments.

to solve what you perceive to be a problem you must ask yourself: what
is the one thing that is fully aware of the current namespace? it's
obviously not rio: it simply juggles windows with shells in them. is
it the shell? putting the completion in the shell itself would work
for plain terminals, but wouldn't work for rio. is it the kernel?
would you bother adding to the kernel something as silly as command
completion? how about completing across a network?

all difficult questions for a silly problem ;)

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Rudolf Sykora <rudolf.sykora@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everybody!
>
> If I understand it right ^f (or an 'ins' key) are taken care of by rio and
> thus the success of completion is essentially dependent on the namespace rio
> is using. This namespace is created when rio is started, usually right after
> a computer start. When the namespaces of individual windows are changed, e.
> g. by binding some remote filesystems, ^f can't handle those new files
> (since the rio namespace stays intact). Even though I may understand the
> reason (i.e. what I have just said) I find it rather irritating, having
> maybe the whole space I work with out of reach of ^f. Is there any help with
> that? Couldn't it be somehow achieved that ^f worked 'better'? (Not saying
> rc should take care of it, it probably should not; but what about if it were
> somehow connected with the individual windows? -- I don't know, it may not
> be possible, just asking. Having to always write 'lc' is somewhat ...).
> Starting a bunch of several rios can help it. But is that a right way to
> go?
>
> Thanks for answers.
> Ruda
>