Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:31:06 -0800
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Making tab-complete.c easier to maintain
Message-ID: <20151209183106.GC10778@fetter.org>
References: 
 <CAEepm=1ns0rbo+xun_j6_PwDT6zmEPuNggy=Vaie-3peF2C44Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMkU=1zRsaaSF_8qyQNYqOcDt0Xa7Awk==YdWCeTZtNhjnPNww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEepm=1Oaq+L_6KCZ5o_hNn-=T93_LiK=_T1C9DcPzgXs4H84g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEepm=1EOiP9_fKfb2B_ncp2hWYFxWEM+OsoD-=-iL_Wh=46Vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151116151923.GX614468@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAB7nPqTfXV5Jwd1j-JF4wTuVgt8ggsNAy=yBByWB0nV1_3CEsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEepm=0+vDukbD7St2tjvpF9Ro9Z5Gj1Q9Mh6hKg+Of2YMNxzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqRoQVqzz9y5hOYBhMwPy5_OoTrObf=5a1XP+zjkPNAAkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151209142709.GA7050@fetter.org>
 <CAM-w4HO_1Qw-Ph8E75hp7A7mNyKnhnNMvmhK2Pv2SqJGoebNxQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAM-w4HO_1Qw-Ph8E75hp7A7mNyKnhnNMvmhK2Pv2SqJGoebNxQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 03:49:20PM +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:27 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> > Agreed that the "whole new language" aspect seems like way too big a
> > hammer, given what it actually does.
> 
> Which would be easier to update when things change?

This question seems closer to being on point with the patch sets
proposed here.

> Which would be possible to automatically generate from gram.y?

This seems like it goes to a wholesale context-aware reworking of tab
completion rather than the myopic ("What has happened within the past N
tokens?", for slowly increasing N) versions of tab completions in both
the current code and in the two proposals here.

A context-aware tab completion wouldn't care how many columns you were
into a target list, or a FROM list, or whatever, as it would complete
based on the (possibly nested) context ("in a target list", e.g.)
rather than on inferences made from some slightly variable number of
previous tokens.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers