Re: PATCH: _rpm tweaks (_files vs _path_files discussion)

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:

> Adam Spiers wrote:
> > Now people may disagree with this, but I would have thought that in
> > many completion scenarios, _path_files -/ -g <glob> is more
> > appropriate than _files -g <glob>.  For example, when completing tar
> > archives, if there are none in directory foo, and you type 
> 
> ...
> 
> A second issue is whether, if you find target files in the current
> directory, you might still want to complete directories.  This is also hard
> to generalise on, since if you are completing a common enough file type you
> might very well want to be offered directories straight away, while if
> there aren't many of that type they may just get in the way.  But probably
> we need to be more consistent, rather than depending on who happened to
> write the completion file.

That's certainly right. I was worried about all these `-g' things I
added, too, and only thought about adding a config key that would be
used in all those places where we now use `-g'. I didn't think about:

> It's not a perfect solution, but we could have an argument to _files saying
> search only for directories if nothing found, not everything else, and a
> completion key saying whether, if that flag is passed, you want directories
> included in the list with the other files.  For example,
> _files -g <glob> + -/ (hey, this gives me the idea for another type of
> completion interface :-/), and the configuration option
> path_merge_alternatives, or something shorter.

This sounds good.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de