Thanks, for the interesting read.

It's a good first dive into zsh completion. The whole thing is quite the large system to wrap ones head around it and I'm still somewhat struggling.

But at work, I've been slowly adding auto completion to our ansible wrapper scripts, like explanations which playbooks to use when, smart `-l` completion based off a possibly selected playbook (so, if the playbook is postgres.yml, it doesn't suggest mariadb groups), tag autocompletion (with a few, admittedly, hardcoded explanations how these tags should be used) and such.

It's somewhat of a friday-afternoon struggle project, but it's making the big ansible project pretty approachable to use.

In zsh you can use the _gnu_generic function for simple completion of commands with a --help flag. Just put a line like this somewhere in your startup file: compdef _gnu_generic <CMD>

I've wondered this as well - it would sure be nice if there was a standard --completion or something that common argument parsing libraries could automatically implement for us (much like they often implement automatic help text)

I don't know about "use" — luckily, there's no opt-out telemetry — but enough of "enthusiast distribution" users who have also opted in (very biased sample) have explicitly installed zsh (not necessarily run it)

https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/compare/packages#packages=bash...

OTOH, it's only 4-7% on Debian (also opt-in):

https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=zsh

You mean Unix shell syntax. Powershell has got this absolutely right ,and only this (which is probably still a 50% of what a shell is)

When I screen share, people don't realize I'm not using zsh and dozen plugins. It's just fish and it's beautiful out of the box.

Thank you for the comment. https://github.com/umlx5h/zsh-manpage-completion-generator appears to adapt this to ZSH. Have yet to try through

[delayed]

The answer to your question is that command-lines have a much larger diversity of syntax (even to get help!) than most people realize. Folks have their 30..60 commands they run frequently and don't run into many or conveniently forget/neglect older ones like `gcc` or `tar` or `dd`. Many people (not saying you specifically) do not even realize that double-dash long options are a GNU extension never standardized or that Python toolkits typically allow --my-opt for --my-option abbreviations, just to name a couple of the dozen variations (space or '=', or ':' or '/' or any of the above or etc., etc.). There are probably hundreds if not thousands of syntax possibilities, but people often act like there is only one.

As an example of diversity estimation that you can try at home, a couple of times I have run every single command in my command search PATH with --help </dev/null >/tmp/help.$c 2>&1 . Caution - be careful if you do this! Have backups/checksums of everything important and run as an unprivileged user. I always have to kill off several processes that just hang doing something or otherwise manually intervene. Anyway, this alone suggests data collection of help text is not a trivial problem.

Beyond data collection, many commands did not/do not use CLI toolkits at all. Their commands may have even less regular syntax. Freeform help makes it harder to produce a regular help syntax to convert into the interpreter needed by a completion system. That said, as elsethread commented for some toolkits the Zsh _gnu_generic works great! It essentially IS the "automagic" system you might want, just for a highly restricted circumstance.

Any CLI toolkit itself does have the data, by necessity. So, if the CLI framework supports the 2 or 3 common shells there is no need for a translator exactly. You just need a code generator. There is a stab at an auto-generation framework from said data for the Nim CLI toolkit, cligen, over at:

https://github.com/c-blake/cligen/blob/master/util/complgen....

but it only works for Zsh right now. Anyway, I don't think perfect should be the enemy of the good or anything like that, but you seemed to ask an earnest "why" question and these are some of the complexities.

I have come to absolutely despise web form inputs with front end email validators that are broken. Input field hints to type your email, so you start typing. As soon as you type the first letter it goes red and says “error!!! Invalid email!”

Unbelievably frustrating.

As it works as desired after running: complete -r; there is something broken about the bash-completion script.

I agree that is annoying. It's waaay less confusing to complete a filename and then get an error from the actual program than it is for just ...nothing to happen so you get confused and have to `ls` to check if the file actually exists and it does and so you think tab completion is broken for some reason and you copy & paste the filename and then finally you get the error that explains what is going on.

It should at least print a message like "file foo.exe exists but it isn't executable".

Thanks for linking this! This is a lightweight solution, compared to ijq (interactive jq), but it still may come in handy.

https://github.com/gpanders/ijq