Re: [PATCH] tcsh-completion re-using git-completion.bash
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 16, 2012, 20:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAMP44s3S4c7ciJNurxGdS2o_TDJJDkGK73dtCGji+C1NoV+Jvw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAFj1UpHMc-bHJgSZKY13YH_69TXkz-50g5xpLA6C+Eh0aqcN9A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Felipe Contreras >>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Is it possible to just check if this is a login shell? >>> >>> I think it would be nice to allow the user to manually >>> source git-completion.tcsh, in case they want to make >>> manual modifications to it. >> >> Yeah, they could still do that... because they would be running in a >> login shell. >> >> What I meant is that if the user does: tcsh >> my_script_that_has_nothing_to_do_with_completion.sh, they would not be >> executing this whole script. > > Oh, I see now. > > I can put a check in the script for the existence of the $prompt variable. > This will indicate if it is a login shell or not. > However, a good .cshrc file should already have such a check to avoid > sourcing a bunch of useless things. So, I personally think that we > should not add it to the git-completion.tcsh script but let the tcsh > user decide to do it herself. But I don't mind being overruled :)
Sounds sensible to me.
Show 16 quoted lines
>>> I think the most user-friendly option is to actually re-generate the >>> script each time. It feels wrong, but it works well :) >> >> I'm not too strongly opposed to add that function to the bash >> completion, but to do it only for tcsh doesn't sound right, specially >> when there are other alternatives. > > I agree, and this is why I made the proposed > __git_complete_with_output () generic. That way it could be > used by other shells or programs. But at this time, only tcsh > would make use of it. > > If you think having __git_complete_with_output () could > be useful for others, I think we should go with solution (A). > If you don't think so, or if it is better to wait until a need > arises first, then solution (C) will work fine.
I don't see how it could be useful to others, and if we find out that it could, we can always move the code.
Show 5 quoted lines
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but very few people use tcsh. > > Less than I originally thought, when I started working > on this patch :-\ But I'm still hoping that the those people > will be a little happier with their git completion.
I think they would :) But we don't need to modify bash's script for that (for now).
Cheers.
-- Felipe Contreras