I think the "complete" inside the function should be "builtin complete" to ensure the native function is called.
--Diego > On Nov 10, 2014, at 1:59 AM, David Adam <zanc...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote: > > Presumably you could do something like this: > > ``` > function complete > complete --authoritative $argv > end > funcsave complete > ``` > > I have not tested this. Make backups and ensure you have an alternative > shell installed and enabled if you are going to try it, because you might > need to delete ~/.config/fish/functions/complete.fish. > > [DAA] > > On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Santhosh T wrote: > >> HI David, >> >> so the feature is there. is there any way to make authoritative by default >> explicitly >> >> - santhosh >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:24 AM, David Adam <zanc...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> >> wrote: >> >>> This functionality was altered before the release of fish 2.0.0. >>> >>> Commit 6eb66770a49944 [1] makes completions non-authoritative by default. >>> If you pass the `--authoritative` argument to your completions, the >>> behaviour you describe will return. However, this is not enabled for >>> completions shipped with fish because of the difficulty in maintaining >>> parity between these completions and the upstream program. >>> >>> With the next release of fish, a supported path for completions shipped by >>> upstream vendors will be available; these can make use of the >>> `--authoritative` option for even better syntax highlighting. >>> >>> Hope that helps! >>> >>> David Adam >>> zanc...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au >>> >>> >>> [1]: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/commit/6eb66770a49944 >>> >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Santhosh T wrote: >>>> the article http://lwn.net/Articles/136232/ says that >>>> fish shell can show misspelled options as errors. >>>> >>>> it has a screenshot also where "--colour" is highlighted in red in "ls >>>> --colour" command. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> when I tried the same, it didn't work. >>>> >>>> so i asked the question.... >>>> >>>> - santhosh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Cedric Auger <sedri...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-10-31 17:58 GMT+01:00 Santhosh T <santhosh.tek...@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> when i type "ls --unknownoption" >>>>>> >>>>>> i am expected "--unknownoption" to be shown in red. >>>>>> >>>>>> fish only showing wrong commands in red color, but not wrong options >>>>>> >>>>>> i already did run "fish_update_completions" >>>>>> >>>>>> I am using MAC >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> Santhosh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I first glance, I would say, that it is not a realistic feature. >>>>> How could you tell if a given option is a right or a wrong one? >>>>> >>>>> For the command, work is easy: just ask the file system is there is >>> such >>>>> an executable program. >>>>> But there is no Unix command which tells given a program and options if >>>>> they are compatible. >>>>> Of course, like autocompletion, you could forbid some options (but that >>>>> would concern only very specific programs for which the set of "good" >>>>> options can be easily known). >>>>> Plus there should be some clever parsing, as for example "ls -- >>>>> --unknownoption" is a valid command (at least on the Ubuntu version I >>> have). >>>>> That is because I can create a file named "--unknownoption". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> .../Sedrikov\... >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> David Adam >>> zanc...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au >>> Ask Me About Our SLA! >>> >> > > Cheers, > > David Adam > zanc...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au > Ask Me About Our SLA! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Fish-users mailing list > Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
