Re: address@hidden: some other observations on pcomplete]

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> On Mon Mar 11, RMS writes:

> That could be an ok solution if it really achieves the effect.  But
> why have the overhead of loading pcomplete just to get the same
> results as before?  It seems better just to revert the change;
> people who want pcomplete behavior can rebind those characters to
> run pcomplete easily enough.

Mainly because people could then configure them back on.  But it's
fine with me if we revert.  I was just hoping to promote pcomplete as
a general-purpose completion library, reducing the amount of
duplicated algorithms.

John