8 ms·

Generate command-line completions using a simple DSL

40 points by dmmalam 11y ago

ridiculous_fish 11y ago
Sweet! Similar to docopt. It's humbling to see how short this can be in Haskell, compared to my C++ code https://github.com/ridiculousfish/docopt_fish https://github.com/ridiculousfish/docopt_fish (though in my defense the C++ version is more featureful, with better error messages). We're likely to build this sort of thing in directly to the fish shell: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/478 https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/478 . From a usage spec, you get tab-completions, syntax highlighting, argument parsing and validation, and user help. It's sort of silly that there is no machine-parseable usage spec for common Unix commands. Once the docopt support is integrated, I hope to create a repository of usage specs that anyone can contribute to, similar to explainshell.com
- maratc 11y ago
  > It's sort of silly that there is no machine-parseable usage spec for common Unix commands man pages can qualify for a usage spec. Projects like explainshell.com[1] parse these quite successfully. [1]http://explainshell.com http://explainshell.com
chilicuil 11y ago
I prefer to read the options directly from the commands and feed them into the auto completions, some examples: https://github.com/chilicuil/learn/tree/master/autocp/completions https://github.com/chilicuil/learn/tree/master/autocp/comple...
jwdunne 11y ago
This has come at a good time. I've been using git, composer and Laravel's artisan thinking that this sort of thing would improve my productivity massively. File name completions are great but option/sub-command completions could really speed up my workflow.
MindTooth 11y ago
Nice to see tools make tasks easier, but I do not like the trend of using every other new (I know Haskell is not new) language for it. I don't need the large download and compile time for a simple tool. But great work!

8 ms·

Generate command-line completions using a simple DSL

40 points by dmmalam 11y ago

ridiculous_fish 11y ago
Sweet! Similar to docopt. It's humbling to see how short this can be in Haskell, compared to my C++ code https://github.com/ridiculousfish/docopt_fish https://github.com/ridiculousfish/docopt_fish (though in my defense the C++ version is more featureful, with better error messages). We're likely to build this sort of thing in directly to the fish shell: https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/478 https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/478 . From a usage spec, you get tab-completions, syntax highlighting, argument parsing and validation, and user help. It's sort of silly that there is no machine-parseable usage spec for common Unix commands. Once the docopt support is integrated, I hope to create a repository of usage specs that anyone can contribute to, similar to explainshell.com
- maratc 11y ago
  > It's sort of silly that there is no machine-parseable usage spec for common Unix commands man pages can qualify for a usage spec. Projects like explainshell.com[1] parse these quite successfully. [1]http://explainshell.com http://explainshell.com
chilicuil 11y ago
I prefer to read the options directly from the commands and feed them into the auto completions, some examples: https://github.com/chilicuil/learn/tree/master/autocp/completions https://github.com/chilicuil/learn/tree/master/autocp/comple...
jwdunne 11y ago
This has come at a good time. I've been using git, composer and Laravel's artisan thinking that this sort of thing would improve my productivity massively. File name completions are great but option/sub-command completions could really speed up my workflow.
MindTooth 11y ago
Nice to see tools make tasks easier, but I do not like the trend of using every other new (I know Haskell is not new) language for it. I don't need the large download and compile time for a simple tool. But great work!