Can you add custom completions? I don't see proper completion for tmux sub-commands or git sub-commands.
Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
71–80 of 155 posts
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#72This is missing the point of a shell by a mile. Extra features are nice. As an extra . Preferably on top of a rock solid platform that works everywhere, on everything, under any conditions. Same reason your PC boots in 16 bit real mode. I'm quite happy living in the 80s.
Your PC boots in 16 bit real mode because Intel is too locked into x86 to get rid of legacy modes and instructions. A proper architecture starts in its intended mode.
But I agree, adding all this fluff to a shell is a bit much. I use bash and keep ls colors disabled.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#73I didn't get this right from the start, but this is a fork of fish(shell), which has been around for quite a while: http://fishshell.com/
I'm on the fish mailing list and it has been well received by current contribs and the original author. I expect that the two forks will be one at some point.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stopped using fish a while ago, when it would crash whenever I opened a console session (so I couldn't do anything when X didn't start). I switched to zsh with fish emulation, but lately I realized I have a shell that takes much longer to start up and basically does everything fish does, and nothing more. If fishfish is more stable, I'll switch in a heartbeat.
I'd been using fish for a year or two before switching to zsh too. The main reason for me to give it up is because I could not get it to work smoothly with rvm. I've gotten quite used to zsh by now, and I have to say, I don't feel much for having another go at fish just to run into the same limitations again.
I just downloaded it and while it looks awesome, I see the rvm problem. I haven't used zsh but I'm assuming from your comment that zsh is compatible with RVM. Seems like it shouldn't be too hard to write a fish version of the script that sets up your rvm environment, but if you've gone down that path and it proved too painful I won't bother. However, perhaps fish + rbenv works. Has anyone tried that?
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#75So, is this new fish fully compatible with sh syntax? IIRC the original one was not.
No. I prefer its syntax, but since it is different from anything else I find it hard to remember. So I write my scripts in bash but use fish at the command line. Best of both.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#76So, is this new fish fully compatible with sh syntax? IIRC the original one was not.
[deleted]
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#77Man, I used to use fish. It was great. It was like all the things people eventually make zsh do but in one convenient binary.
I think my favorite feature was that history was instantly shared among all your open fish instances.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#78Can you add custom completions? I don't see proper completion for tmux sub-commands or git sub-commands.
Some instructions here: http://ridiculousfish.com/shell/user_doc/html/index.html#com...
You can put this stuff in your ~/.config/fish/config.fish .
There's a useful set of completions and utilities at https://github.com/zmalltalker/fish-nuggets with a variety of forks that add and remove various things. If nothing else, it's a pretty solid starting point.
Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#79Why does xargs under fish not accept {} as a replstr like it does with bash?
find . | xargs -I {} grep pat {}Re: Fish: Finally, a command line shell for the 90s
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
1: a. Superb readline colouring. Nonexistent commands are shown in red, commands that exist and are on PATH in green. Unclosed string literals become obvious. b. A history search that is orders of magnitude better that Ctrl-r in Bash. (Though oh-my-zsh has the history-substring-search plugin which provides this functionality.) c. Features work out of the box, fish helps you avoid managing a .zshrc equivalent file. d.…
I do not understand your last paragraph. Don't your wrapper scripts have "#!/bin/sh" at the top?
That's being explicit, the problem is with wrapper scripts that omit that, assuming a sh compatible shell.
Still running fish on one of my systems, excited to see new development work as it was getting past the point where I was comfortable using it on anything new.