bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#60505: 29.0.60; Fido Mode and Tramp Completion


From: Gregory Heytings
Subject: bug#60505: 29.0.60; Fido Mode and Tramp Completion
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:14:35 +0000


2. Doing that is not enough, because of an incompatibility between Tramp and the 'flex' and 'substring' mechanisms. The Tramp manual has a footnote which mentions that incompatibility: "Some completion styles, like `substring' or `flex', require to type at least one character after the trailing `:'." A one-line patch to fix it was proposed, but rejected, a year and a half ago. It is attached to this email, and you can use it locally. As I said in the bug thread in which that patch was proposed: "I expect other bug reports from confused users".

I don't deny that there is a problem, and it isn't a surprise that people report about. But I don't think that Tramp misbehaves, it does exactly what it is specified to do.


You may remind that we disagreed on that point. When a connection method has already been fully specified by the user, such as "/ssh:", there is no reason Tramp should tell the user that there are two other connection methods "/sshfs:" and "/sshx:". IOW, after

C-x C-f /ssh TAB

it makes sense to tell the user that there are three possible methods: "/ssh:", "/sshfs:" and "/sshx:". But after

C-x C-f /ssh: TAB

there is no reason to do that again. What the user expects at that point is a list of hostnames.


I guess that flex and friends use completion out of the specification. But I have no knowledge about the completion machinery; otherwise I would have tried to find the root of the problem. I'm also not opposed to extend the completion API for use in Tramp. What I'm opposed to is to apply just an ad-hoc patch, which could have collateral damages.

I still hope that somebody with more knowledge about the completion machinery could take a stab at it.


Why could we not use the ad-hoc patch, with a FIXME note, until somebody has the time to find a better solution, instead of letting bug reports about that problem accumulate? Sure, it could possibly have a collateral damage, but it could as well have no collateral damage at all.






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]