an", type "an" then hit Tab key would complete it to "anaconda". Then, if you additionally type "-" and hit Tab key, completed to anaconda-webui.log.." instead of "-", completed to anaconda.log.
Filename completion is a feature of the shell, not the filesystem. If the shell supports it, it won't matter what filesystem, UFS. ZFS, ext2/3/4, FAT, etc.
Define "substring completion". If you mean "filename completion" then I believe /bin/sh already does that. At least on my system with stock init files filename completion works with at least the ls command.
Ok so standard completion is "starts with" not a regex.
That's a fuzzy search, textproc/fzf might be useful.
Yes, and if you can narrow a path name to a unique pattern that things like: "cd *cke*" can get you into a directory rather quickly. I only had one folder named docker that matched that, so it works out. However, if I had more than one match, it would give an error about not matching anything. Which is fairly sensible.
I've reread both of these a few times and I'm having trouble seeing "usefulness".
It's mostly useful for longer directory names, especially ones that came prenamed with annoying characters. There are a few limitations and the longer the list it has to sift through the longer it takes and more likely it is to give up. However, sometimes you have a very long directory name where just typing a couple letters and then using wildcards gets the whole thing in a couple keystrokes.
Ok, that sounds useful but only if a single match. Having multiple matches still seems to be a problem.
Fuzzy search is useful if you have a ton of files, spread out in different directories. That directory full of documents you've collected, and partially sorted but it's mostly a jumbled mess. You know you have it, but can only remember a partial filename. Now where did I put it? What the heck did I name it this time?
Understood, but if the fuzzy search returns multiples we are back to the "pick one". Rereading this thread, it sounds like the OP desires "fuzzy search to return a single choice" which to me, "fuzzy" implies returning more than single choice which falls back to "how is that output different from ls | grep <pattern>"
Oh, yes. But the nice thing about fzf(1) is, it gives you that list to pick from while you are typing the thing you are looking for. As you type that list gets shorter and shorter until you spot the thing you are looking for and can select it from that shortened list.
That I can fully agree with. Let the shell be the shell. /bin/sh is nice and small, let's not bloat it with a bunch of features that are easily added with an extra command or two. Besides, if you really want those snazzy features, install a different shell, there's a whole bunch of them to pick from. It's for your own user account, you are very much encouraged to install alternate shells. Just leave root's shell on /bin/sh (or /bin/csh).
Ahh. That sounds useful for someone not me because my brain/fingers are wired for the way standard completion works (start of string, etc).
It's a tool that works in a fairly specific situation, but when it works, it's rather useful. I wouldn't suggest using it all the time and in truth, I only use it from time to time. Most of the time, I prefer to just have more sensible names on my files and the like and not have to worry about it.
I think that is an expand, not a complete.
