🚀 go-pugleaf

   From: mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu  (Michael I. Bushnell)
   Sender: bug-bash-request@prep.ai.mit.edu

   In article <13429@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> peiffer@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Tim J. Peiffer) writes:
   >In article <126@unmvax.unm.edu> mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu writes:
   >>Hostname completions are a good idea, but there is a problem.  With

	[15 pounds of useless discussion deleted]

   Look, Mr Condecension, I didn't say that ONE request took a long
   time.

I don't understand why this discussion is taking place publicly.  It is
not a discussion on a bug in bash, it isn't even a philisophical
discussion about bash.  It sounds like two guys arguing over facts,
which is the silliest thing that I have ever heard.

I would really appreciate it if this list was used only for bug reports,
fixes, and the occasional philosphical discussion on things pertaining
directly to Bash.  There are other forums (perhaps net.nameserver.flame)
that would be more appropriate to the current discussion.

In 1.00, I have implemented hostname completion differently; completion
takes place over the names present in a file (default /etc/hosts).  No
host-like system calls are used in the implementation.  I left room for
the dynamic adding of hostnames, so that hostnames that you type can be
added to the list of known hosts.

Rationale:

	For systems without a nameserver, this is exactly right.
	For systems with a nameserver, hostname completion is provided
	to the extent that the installer felt was neccessary.

Brian Fox