Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting

[Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>]

Doug Evans wrote:
> Doug Evans writes:
> > Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> writes:
> > > Doug Evans wrote:
> > >> 1) IWBN if, when "Too many possibilities" is hit, the user was still
> > >> shown the completions thus far.  I'd rather not have to abort the
> > >> command I'm trying to do, increase max-completions, and then try
> > >> again (or anything else to try to find what I'm looking for in order
> > >> to complete the command).  At least not if I don't have to: the
> > >> completions thus far may provide a hint at what I'm looking for.
> > >> Plus GDB has already computed them, might as well print them.
> > >> Imagine if the total count is MAX+1, the user might find it annoying
> > >> to not be shown anything just because the count is one beyond the
> > >> max.
> > >> So instead of "Too many possibilities", how about printing the
> > >> completions thus far and then include a message saying the list is
> > >> clipped due to max-completions being reached?  [Maybe readline makes
> > >> this difficult, but I think it'd be really nice have. Thoughts?]
> > >
> > > It's a nice idea but I'm not volunteering to implement it :)
> > > I already spent too much time figuring out how to thread things
> > > through readline.
> > 
> > One thought I had was one could add a final completion entry
> > that was the message.
> > Would that work?
> 
> I looked into this a bit.
> readline provides a hook to print the completion list:
> rl_completion_display_matches_hook
> and a routine to display the matches:
> rl_display_match_list
> 
> The code in readline/complete.c:display_matches is
> pretty straightforward (though they've apparently
> forgotten to export a way for the hook to set
> rl_display_fixed - we'll want to be as equivalent
> as possible), so I think(!) this will be rather easy to do.
> 
> > One hope I had was that this would be enough:
> > 
> > >> > +		  rl_crlf ();
> > >> > +		  fputs (ex.message, rl_outstream);
> > >> > +		  rl_crlf ();
> > 
> > and that the efforts tui/*.c goes to to support readline would
> > make that work regardless of the value of tui_active.
> > But I confess I haven't tried it.
> > 
> > I wouldn't suggest vectorizing the tui interface.
> > But I do, at the least, want to understand why this is necessary
> > ("this" being the test for tui_active and the different code
> > depending on whether it is true or not),
> > and if it is then I would at a minimum put this code:
> > 
> > >> > +#if defined(TUI)
> > >> > +	      if (tui_active)
> > >> > +		{
> > >> > +		  tui_puts ("\n");
> > >> > +		  tui_puts (ex.message);
> > >> > +		  tui_puts ("\n");
> > >> > +		}
> > >> > +	      else
> > >> > +#endif
> > >> > +		{
> > >> > +		  rl_crlf ();
> > >> > +		  fputs (ex.message, rl_outstream);
> > >> > +		  rl_crlf ();
> > >> > +		}
> > >> > +
> > >> > +	      rl_on_new_line ();
> 
> So that leaves this as just the remaining thing to resolve (AFAICT).
> I'll look into this more next week.
> I'd really like to get this into 7.9.

If you want it in 7.9 then how about I commit it as it is then submit
a followup patch to remove the #ifdef, and you can make your own patch
to add whatever functionality you want.  The readline part of this
series took a good week to get right and I can guarantee you this will
drag past 7.9 if I touch it.

Cheers,
Gary

-- 
http://gbenson.net/