On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 07:43:45AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > > In general I think it would be much better to rely more on 'git > > > for-each-ref' to do the heavy lifting, extending it with new format > > > specifiers/options as necessary. > > > > FWIW, that was my first thought, too. > > I was more concerned whether it's a good idea to begin with. But it > sounds like you two both think it's good otherwise would have > objected. Heh. I do not have any real objection, but I don't think I'd really know until I used it for a while. It may be a matter of preference, in which case we might want $GIT_COMPLETION_REF_COMPONENTS to enable/disable it (I don't have an opinion on what the default should be). > > $ git for-each-ref --refname='%(refname)' > > refs/heads/foo/bar > > refs/heads/foo/baz > > refs/heads/another/deep/one > > > > we'd ideally complete "fo" to "foo/" and "ano" to "another/deep/one", > > rather than making the user tab through each level. > > Ah ha, like github sometimes show nested submodule paths. Just one > small modification, when doing "refs/heads/<tab>" I would just show > > refs/heads/foo/ > refs/heads/another/ > > not refs/heads/another/deep/one to save space. But when you do > "refs/heads/a<tab>" then you get "refs/heads/another/deep/one" > immediately. Yeah. It's still only one entry either way (by definition), but it's going to be much longer than all of the others. Again, I think I'd have to see it in practice to decide how much I cared either way. > > Doing that requires actually understanding that the refs are in a list, > > and not formatting each one independently. So I kind of wonder if it > > would be easier to simply have a completion mode in for-each-mode. > > That also allows more complicated logic. I think sometimes completion > code gets it wrong (I think it's often the case with rev/path > ambiguation, but maybe dwim stuff too). And we already have all this > logic in C. Yeah, agreed. -Peff
