* David Fetter (david@fetter.org) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:53:17PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Kyotaro HORIGUCHI (horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> > > I suppose it is for suggesting what kind of word should come
> > > there, or avoiding silence for a tab. Or for symmetry with other
> > > types of manipulation, like DROP. Another possibility is creating
> > > multiple objects with similar names, say CREATE TABLE employee_x1,
> > > CREATE TABLE employee_x2. Just trying to complete existing
> > > *schema* is one more another possible objective.
> >
> > I don't buy any of these arguments either. I *really* don't want us
> > going down some road where we try to make sure that hitting 'tab'
> > never fails...
>
> Wouldn't that just be a correct, grammar-aware implementation of tab
> completion? Why wouldn't you want that?
No, it wouldn't, it would mean we have to provide something for cases
where it doesn't make sense to try and provide an answer, as being
discussed here for CREATE TABLE.
We can't provide an answer based on tab-completion to what you want to
call your new table.
Thanks!
Stephen
