Wouldn't it be nice if mkdir completion completed _path_files instead of _path_files -/?

Wouldn't it be nice if mkdir completion completed _path_files instead of _path_files -/?

[Nikolai Weibull]

Wouldn't it be nice if mkdir completion completed _path_files instead
of _path_files -/?  I sometimes find myself wanting to create a
directory with a slight variation of a name of a file.  Is there any
harm in completing files as well as directories for mkdir?

  nikolai

Re: Wouldn't it be nice if mkdir completion completed _path_files instead of _path_files -/?

[Bart Schaefer]

On Sep 16,  9:13pm, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
} Subject: Wouldn't it be nice if mkdir completion completed _path_files ins
}
} Wouldn't it be nice if mkdir completion completed _path_files instead
} of _path_files -/?  I sometimes find myself wanting to create a
} directory with a slight variation of a name of a file.  Is there any
} harm in completing files as well as directories for mkdir?

If you're tab-completing a long path through several intermediate
directories where some of those directories have a lot of plain files,
you end up with a lot of useless names to wade through in the menus at
each completion step.

One could, I suppose, arrange to add the plain files to the ignored
list for mkdir so they'd only be completed when no directories are
possible matches.