On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:53:17PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> > I suppose it is for suggesting what kind of word should come
> > there, or avoiding silence for a tab. Or for symmetry with other
> > types of manipulation, like DROP. Another possibility is creating
> > multiple objects with similar names, say CREATE TABLE employee_x1,
> > CREATE TABLE employee_x2. Just trying to complete existing
> > *schema* is one more another possible objective.
> I don't buy any of these arguments either.  I *really* don't want us
> going down some road where we try to make sure that hitting 'tab'
> never fails...

Wouldn't that just be a correct, grammar-aware implementation of tab
completion?  Why wouldn't you want that?

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to