On 2005-01-14, Joel VanderWerf <vjoel / PATH.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
> I wonder if it is possible to restructure completion.rb so that instead 
> of patches, this sort of thing can just be a module that one invokes in 
> one's .irbrc ....

Well, as for now you can require 'irb/completion' and the completion
proc defined there will be "mounted" from that on.

An alternative to this could be replacing the completion proc with a proc
factory method and a "mount" method which attaches the produced proc object as
completor.

But to do this, first you have to have a nice pool of requirements (from the
actual users' side) and design ideas along which you would implement the
factory method. And it's all not a hot topic, this seems to be none's itch
to scratch. So what then... can you come up with any different scheme for
completion which might be worth for a refactorization?

I propose my patch because its a humble hack: adds some functionality which
might come handy but doesn't break anything (the chances that you'd need
to complete those filename-beginnigs in a different way in your interactive
code are practically zero). No rocket science, just a slight makeup.

<OT>
Well, it's quite a surprise that you are the one who answered my post...
Just before I read your answer, I decided that I give you my "quote of the week"
award, due to an old post of you, to which I bumped on accidentally... It
says: "If we ever find intelligent creatures somewhere else in the universe, 
they will know pi, e, and some dialect of LISP." ;) Is it original?
</OT>

Csab