
Generate command-line completions using a simple DSL - dmmalam
https://github.com/mbrubeck/compleat
======
ridiculous_fish
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
> 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
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/comple...](https://github.com/chilicuil/learn/tree/master/autocp/completions)

------
jwdunne
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
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!

