From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: completion for compilers (cc, gcc...) and -o
Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 00:43:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200502004347.5b6d880a@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200501011116.GE818727@zira.vinc17.org>
Vincent Lefevre wrote on Fri, 01 May 2020 03:11 +0200:
> On 2020-04-30 22:05:32 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre wrote on Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:17 +00:00:
> > > On 2020-04-30 18:14:59 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > Vincent Lefevre wrote on Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:51 +0200:
> > > > > The -o option is currently handled by
> > > > >
> > > > > '-o:output file:_files -g "^*.(c|h|cc|C|cxx)(-.)"'
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder whether .i files (preprocessed files, e.g. for bug reports)
> > > > > should be excluded too. One can choose such files for output with
> > > > > "gcc -E", but:
> > > > > * in this case, one generally chooses to use the shorter ">" (or a
> > > > > pipe) rather than "-o" (gcc -E file.c > file.i);
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how the existence of other ways to create .i files is
> > > > a reason not to complete .i files after -o.
> > >
> > > I've googled a bit, and most examples with -E and storage in a file
> > > used the redirection.
> >
> > You've got your conditional probabilities backwards. The _a priori_
> > likelihood that -o should be used to create a .i file is irrelevant to
> > what should be completed after -o.
>
> The issue is that with a completion result on -o that is unexpected by
> the user, there is a risk of destroying a source file, while the user
> may expect something more sensible.
That'd be a pilot error. People should read command lines before
executing them. That's also why _rm doesn't filter out source files,
even though rm(1) is as likely to destroy source files as the -o option
in _gcc.
Besides, source files are generally in version control, so the
destruction will generally be reversible (up to local mods).
(And I'm still not convinced that completing .i after -o is unexpected.)
> And note that after all, filename extensions are just conventions,
> and the whole completion system is based on it, so that for instance,
> completion on "xz -c" will not propose filenames that do not end with
> ".xz" (except when there are no other candidates), even though there
> may be unlikely candidates without a ".xz" suffix.
I can't quite parse this paragraph, sorry.
> Typing "gcc file.i -o f[TAB]" and getting "gcc file.i -o file.i"
> does not make any sense.
Agreed.
> > > BTW, all examples used the -E first, so perhaps
> > > accept .i files for -o only when -E is present.
> > >
> > > Note that GCC describes .i files as source files (among other
> > > extensions of source files).
> >
> > They're _intermediate_ files; they can be either input or output. But
> > they _can_ be output, so we should complete them, shouldn't we?
>
> I would say only with -E, then.
Maybe complete them always, but not under the same tag as output files
which aren't intermediate files (such as .so files)? When the user has
typed «cc -o <TAB>», we don't know whether the user intends to create
a .i, or .o, or .exe, or .so, but in any case separating the possibilities
by type (= set of extensions) is likely to be helpful.
"In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."
Cheers,
Daniel
P.S. I don't understand why it's useful for -o to complete .c files when
all files in the directory are .c files. Wouldn't a "No matches" error
be more practical? I suppose there's a way to coerce the tag-order style
into providing these semantics…
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-02 0:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-30 8:51 Vincent Lefevre
2020-04-30 17:57 ` Bart Schaefer
2020-04-30 18:14 ` Daniel Shahaf
2020-04-30 20:17 ` Vincent Lefevre
2020-04-30 20:32 ` Bart Schaefer
2020-04-30 20:54 ` Vincent Lefevre
2020-04-30 22:34 ` Daniel Shahaf
2020-04-30 22:36 ` Daniel Shahaf
2020-04-30 23:07 ` Bart Schaefer
2020-04-30 22:05 ` Daniel Shahaf
2020-05-01 1:11 ` Vincent Lefevre
2020-05-02 0:43 ` Daniel Shahaf [this message]
2020-05-02 1:26 ` Bart Schaefer
2020-05-03 23:17 ` Vincent Lefevre
2020-05-04 23:58 ` Daniel Shahaf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200502004347.5b6d880a@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2 \
--to=d.s@daniel.shahaf.name \
--cc=zsh-workers@zsh.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).