On 08 Mar 2018, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>At least I think to remember that this wasn't always buggy... it only
>happened in <admittedly long ago and I was probably too lazy for years
>to investigate&report ^^>.
If you do not source bash_completion, then these completions work as
you expect. So maybe you didn't have bash-completion installed?
>I cannot really say for sure whether there are undesired side
I guess that's the hard part... Proving something to be free of
errors. Maybe it's even impossible to prove.
>I mean bash-completion should anyway only be active in
>interactive sessions, right? So scripts shouldn't take any harm.
>And for interactive sessions (or such who kinda hack a script to behave
>like in an interactive one)... people must always expect that such
>changes occur in new versions.
That's a good point.
>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