Re: [Help-bash] How to keep only files match the prefix when do command completion?

[Peng Yu]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Pierre Gaston <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Peng Yu <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I understand that it's nice to have an absolute sense of the correctness
>>> of your position.  I'm more skeptical, and I am less certain about the
>>> statistical significance of your sample size of one.
>>
>> Bash is full of such examples, it is because you don't change your
>> perspective so you don't see other examples.
>>
>> My previous question is not to question that the authors did not want
>> to do the best. I was just reminding the authors that there are
>> certain things that have been overlooked and that probably the authors
>> should consider, and reminding authors not to just think of reasons
>> for justifying previous decisions and not to refuse to change.
>>
>> Let me reply to previous a few follow up messages by mentioning a
>> better documentation method that might be taken for bash. The
>> following document is for jQuery, which obviously have examples and
>> people can comment on the documents as well as add more explanations.
>> Only by this way, the document can be evolved to a source that is both
>> good for novice as well as experienced users. The old fashioned
>> info/man page clearly is outdated in the perspective of allowing a
>> more dynamic document.
>>
>> http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.ajax/
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Peng
>>
> Maybe you'll like these:
>
> http://wiki.bash-hackers.org/doku.php

This is along the line of what I'm suggesting. But when people use a
tool, he will first check the manual. Why not make the manual itself
human readable and not to force users to read every bit of the manual?
I think that it is the resistant of the manual authors to these
suggestions resulted the creation of these help websites. But I'd like
to see consolidations of information on these websites with the
manual. Only by this way, the burden on the users can be lessened.

"human-readable documentation and information to not force users to
read every bit of the Bash manpage"

Just to mention a bad example of manual/specification. The official
manual of JavaScript is badly written. To make a manual accurate, it
certainly not necessary to make it hard to read. I think that the last
sentence below applies to bash as well.

http://javascript.crockford.com/javascript.html
"The official specification for the language is published by ECMA. The
specification is of extremely poor quality. It is difficult to read
and very difficult to understand. This has been a contributor to the
Bad Book problem because authors have been unable to use the standard
document to improve their own understanding of the language. ECMA and
the TC39 committee should be deeply embarrassed."

-- 
Regards,
Peng