Re: [9fans] control-F completion question

["Federico G. Benavento" <benavento@gmail.com>]

hola,

I got the tip from rog's post to affect rio's ns,
plumber's actually.

http://9fans.net/archive/2005/02/171

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Rudolf Sykora <rudolf.sykora@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2008/10/3 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 ;)
>
> I might again be wrong, but I thought the reason why the completion is not
> in the rc is partially thanks to the fact, that rc doesn't know anything you
> type until you press 'enter'. Only rio knows. (But all this is based only on
> my possibly broken opinion...)
> But yes, the best would be (for me and I guess for everybody, since we
> usually speak to rc when we need the completion) to be as close to the rc's
> namespace as possible.
> Correct me, please, if I am completely off the road... :)
>
> Ruda
>
>



--
Federico G. Benavento