On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 22:14 -0300, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: > I found these two issues upstream, which seem related: > > https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/pull/77 > https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/issues/181 > > It seems that Ville Skyttä is also worried about side-effects: > > https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/pull/77#issuecomment-25158210 > 5 > > > I also found this pair, which also seems related, but I'm not sure it > actually relates to what you're reporting: > > https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/issues/42 > https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/pull/41
Okay...so there possibly are some issues... On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 22:29 -0300, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: > If you do not source bash_completion, then these completions work as > you expect. So maybe you didn't have bash-completion installed? No,.. I'm pretty sure I always had (one of the first things I do ;-) ). But actually, I think, it was not "working" in the sense that it completed to all possible matches, but rather simply left * in place > > What I personally would probably even like more was, if * is just > > not > > completed at all... but completing it only to one "random" match is > > just pointless. > > I agree. Actually I think, it would be even better to just have * not expand by completion per default (which would often just clutter up the readline with countless of possible matches)... the best (if that was possible) would perhaps be if it just *shows* the possible completions, but does not actually expand to it. But that would of course be just my personal preference. Cheers, Chris.
