[HN Gopher] New Features in the Fish Shell
___________________________________________________________________
New Features in the Fish Shell
Author : chmaynard
Score : 190 points
Date : 2020-09-29 18:14 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lwn.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (lwn.net)
| NuSkooler wrote:
| I've been almost exclusively using Fish on all my installations
| for a few years now.
|
| Every once in a while I have to sub to Bash, but it's very rare.
| lucaspauker wrote:
| I remember not switching over due to having spent years
| incrementally building up a bashrc. Is there a way to port it
| over?
| ilaksh wrote:
| What I do is run bash as default and then fish on top of it
| thenewwazoo wrote:
| I tried to use fish for a while and ended up giving up and going
| back to bash, mostly for one (somewhat irrational) reason: fish
| kept recognizing bash-isms and yelling at me about it.
|
| Clearly there's a code path to recognize the thing, so why not
| just _do_ it? It already knows what I want, why post a message
| instead? Either interpret it, or don 't.
| tempay wrote:
| In the latest major version they've actually changed most of
| these so it's worth another try if you're so inclined.
| [deleted]
| daveidol wrote:
| I get the sentiment, but not sure I agree with the "either
| interpret it, or don't" part - it sounds like you are
| essentially saying the scripting should either match Bash
| completely (and thus lose out on the more modern syntax) or not
| offer any kind of helpful error to users. Or perhaps support
| both types of syntax?
|
| Personally I think it's fine to help guide new users to the new
| syntax without directly supporting it - this keeps Fish scripts
| from all devolving into the (subjectively ugly) bash format.
| It's like a graceful deprecation warning.
|
| Edit: although I do think ceding on the logical operators (&&,
| ||) was a good move since that one is so fundamental
| djstein wrote:
| thanks fish contributors. just upgraded and even simple ls -la is
| snapper. so excited to have normal environment variable usage
| lvh wrote:
| I've used fish in the past but went back to zsh. IIRC fish broke
| a bunch of times between versions and the maintainer feedback
| wasn't great. The maintainers of course don't owe me any of their
| time, so I'm not _mad_ about it, I just don 't use it anymore
| because I need my shell to work reliably every time I open a
| terminal. (I don't remember the precise problem but I'm sure I
| could go find it.)
|
| I now use zsh with zgen and a smattering of modules. It works
| fine, doesn't have the issue that you have to first translate
| every snippet you find to your new shell, and it's still easy for
| the newer shell users in your life to use.
| nikisweeting wrote:
| As a long-time power user of fish for 6+ years, I cannot live
| without it. It's easily in my top 5 most game-changing upgrades
| to my dev environment. (up there with a clipboard history manager
| and TabNine for code autocompletion)
|
| Over the years I've amassed hundreds of fish functions for common
| tasks on my machines, https://github.com/pirate/fish-functions. I
| loved it so much I started using it to write devops/deployment
| scripts instead of bash. That was a mistake.
|
| It has some serious limitations as a scripting language, namely
| lack of proper subshell support and background process control.
| The relevant issues have been open for years with no clear
| resolution in sight. (which is fair, these are very hard problems
| and it's an open-source project with finite resources)
|
| That's fine though, it's still my favorite interactive shell for
| use in a Terminal. I just make sure to write any script longer
| than a few lines in Bash. https://github.com/pirate/bash-utils
| kstrauser wrote:
| Fish functions are just gorgeous, and what made me drop Zsh
| like a hot potato. Suppose you want to make an automatically
| loaded (that is, not defined in the shell's rc file) function
| called foo. Here's how you do it:
|
| - Make a file named ~/.config/fish/functions/foo.fish
|
| - Inside it, define a function named "foo"
|
| That's it. Now when you open a new shell and try to run the
| command "foo", Fish will look for the file named foo.fish in
| that directory, load and execute it, then call the foo function
| from in it.
|
| Now, create an autoloaded function in Zsh or Bash without
| looking at a man page.
|
| There are a million little niceties like that where I'd assumed
| that a certain task had to be complicated because every shell
| I'd used before had made it complicated, but then Fish came up
| with a nice convention for making it simple. Want to make a
| function to dynamically set your shell's prompt? Create a
| function named "fish_prompt" in the file
| ~/.config/fish/functions/fish_prompt.fish. Ta-da - turns out it
| doesn't _have_ to be a pain in the neck to do that.
|
| I completely agree about using it as a scripting language,
| though. It's great for making functions for your interactive
| shell, but stick with sh or bash (or Python) for writing more
| sophisticated stuff.
| moonchild wrote:
| for fname in $(ls ~/.config/zsh/functions); do source $fname;
| done
|
| :)
| skizziepop wrote:
| for fname in ~/.config/zsh/functions/*; do source $fname;
| done
|
| will prevent issues with special chars and spaces in
| filenames
| tyingq wrote:
| Curious if this is loaded if you run fish from cron, or if
| there's a flag for that. That's a recurring irritation with
| regular shells, you have to manually load config if you run
| cmd line or cron.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| The best part about fish is you don't have to configure it much
| to be productive in it. It is really nice that the fish
| maintainers think hard about what should be configurable, and
| what sane defaults should be. This is not as common as it
| should be in OSS. Contrast with zsh, which has a billion knobs
| to tweak, and the consensus is that everyone should install a
| huge "community dotfile framework" (whatever that means)
| consisting of tons of opaque aliases and settings, some of
| which might make your shell startup lag.
|
| More to a specific point: I haven't had much of an issue with
| fish's subshell/backgrounding control. That doesn't mean that
| there aren't issues, just that my interactive use doesn't trip
| into them.
|
| I will note that you can write an async git prompt using
| nothing but fish itself, which I consider an advanced use case
| for a shell. Check it out:
|
| https://github.com/mattgreen/lucid.fish
| nikisweeting wrote:
| I ended up implementing my own background process management
| for fish here, it uses bash to fork a subshell with fish
| inside of it, which seems to solve all the problems I
| encountered.
|
| https://github.com/pirate/fish-
| functions/blob/master/backgro...
|
| https://github.com/pirate/fish-
| functions/blob/master/progres...
|
| https://github.com/pirate/fish-
| functions/blob/master/signal....
|
| https://github.com/pirate/fish-functions/blob/master/fork
|
| Usage: background progress_await
| compiling_task_finished g++ ... some slow
| command signal compiling_task_finished
|
| This allows the progress bar to truly run at the same time as
| the g++ command and receive a signal from the fg process when
| it's time to complete, something a simple & does not let you
| do in fish.
|
| I've collected more details on Fish's issues here for anyone
| interested:
|
| https://github.com/pirate/fish-functions#issues-with-fish
| hnlmorg wrote:
| > _It has some serious limitations as a scripting language,
| namely lack of proper subshell support and background process
| control. The relevant issues have been open for years with no
| clear resolution in sight. (which is fair, these are very hard
| problems and it 's an open-source project with finite
| resources)_
|
| You say that but I'd been writing a shell in my spare time and
| I solved those problems over the course of a few weeks. For me
| though, they were important problems to solve because few other
| lesser mainstream / alternative shells addressed those problems
| and thus they became all the more tantalising problems to
| solve. In Fish's case, they might be lower priority jobs.
|
| Unfortunately though, I also broke job control support again
| earlier this year and haven't had the spare time during the
| pandemic (my kids have been understandably more demanding of my
| time now that I'm working from home) to fix it. So I can't demo
| that particular feature as working. As an aside, this is also a
| good lesson to everyone to write robust tests....
| Osiris wrote:
| I've been using fish for longer than I can remember, but I
| almost never write fish functions. The out of the box
| experience is already much better than bash/zsh (out of the
| box, not including plugins/etc).
|
| I also prefer the basic syntax for things like for and while
| looks on the command line, the way they get formatted. With
| bash I always had to look up the syntax because I didn't use it
| much. Fish, I barely have to look up things because they are
| pretty intuitive, for the most part.
|
| Also, no adding `export X=Y` to your .bashrc because you can
| just `set -U` and it automatically saves it between sessions.
| OhSoHumble wrote:
| The lack of associative arrays is what does it for me.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| This, especially the long-awaited introduction of logical
| operators (&&, ||) is most welcome.
|
| In the past I used bash then zsh then migrated to fish and not
| looking back. If you work in a shell a lot I can't recommend it
| enough; it will boost your productivity. Especially with tons of
| cool extras like oh-my-fish.
|
| Huge thanks to all the contributors; keep up the good work!
| lorenzfx wrote:
| One of the things that really bug me out about fish shell is how
| it completes history. If you type the beginning of a command, you
| can use the arrows to cycle through all matching history items.
| All items BUT THE LAST ONE. That one you have to complete with
| ctrl-f.
|
| And the worst thing is, this behavior is completely intentionally
| [0]. For some time I used a patched version of fish, but it was
| just too inconvenient and I went back to zsh.
|
| [0] https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/405
| maximilianroos wrote:
| To preface -- I love Fish -- "Finally, a command line shell for
| the 90s" is an apt description. I use it every day.
|
| But I haven't managed to recommend it to beginners. There are so
| many bash instructions out there, and translating between bash
| and fish isn't easy for a beginner.
|
| That's a great shame and missed opportunity, because beginners
| would in particular value a nice shell. The shell is often one of
| the harder tools to learn -- e.g. I find beginners are more
| comfortable in a Jupyter Notebook than they are the shell.
|
| I'm not sure whether there's a way of combining fish's ease of
| use with a notion of compatibility -- maybe a "bash mode" for
| beginners, which accepts bash commands? Or error messages which
| return translated commands?
|
| (I recognize not all commands can be translated, but all of those
| that would be run by a beginner can be)
| alan_n wrote:
| I wish someone had recommended fish to me as a beginner. When I
| discovered it I was finally able to write some aliases and
| scripts without copy/pasting, overdoing it by resorting to a
| real programming language, or wasting an entire day trying then
| giving up. Concerning bash instructions, it's not that hard to
| translate them imo, or you can just use bass or just pop into
| bash for a second.
| markstos wrote:
| Extra compatibility has been added lately, like && and ||. More
| bash syntax Just Works now.
|
| I think it's fair to say "If it doesn't work in fish, just type
| `bash` to enter a bash shell and try again."
| ilaksh wrote:
| It actually doesn't come up that often. A lot of times you can
| just either A) paste one line at a time or B) use double
| quotes.
|
| But what I do is I run fish manually on top of bash. If I have
| an issue, I just type exit and then try to paste the commands
| in again. Then when I am done I restart fish.
| hinkley wrote:
| It's a chronic problem on work projects that people write shell
| scripts without a shebang operator at the top. Obscure error
| messages are usually how I find out someone is using zsh, fish,
| or some other shell.
|
| I fix what I can, but it's like mopping up water during a
| rainstorm. Yes it's better than doing nothing, but also there
| will be more in twenty minutes so don't make any plans.
| azernik wrote:
| One way I force people (mostly myself) to include shebang
| lines:
|
| Have a scripts directory in my repo that mixes shell and
| python scripts with no file extensions and executable bits
| set. If I don't put a shebang, it just doesn't run.
|
| Of course, this requires you to have firm control of code
| style policies.
| chubot wrote:
| This is the point of Oil -- having a smooth upgrade from bash.
| The interactive shell ended up being more work than I
| anticipated. So I'm looking for people who want to run with it
| either as a separate project or part of Oil.
|
| http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2020/02/recap.html#fish-oil-is-...
|
| Another option is to link Oil as a C++ library into another
| shell, which is starting to become possible. Oil handles all
| the difficult language and compatibility issues, and
| encapsulates them, so it's a great complement to someone who
| only wants to work on the interactive shell.
|
| Even though it cleans up many legacy warts, Oil runs thousands
| of lines of real bash programs:
| https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/Shell-Programs-That-Run...
|
| Posts on the interactive shell:
| https://www.oilshell.org/blog/tags.html?tag=interactive-shel...
| zamadatix wrote:
| Have you seen https://www.oilshell.org/
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Oil is more focused on making shell scripting nicer, Fish is
| more focused on making shell interaction nicer. Both are cool
| projects, just slightly different focus.
| oblio wrote:
| If Oil makes error checking and error messages nicer, it
| will have provided an awesome service to the community.
| jiehong wrote:
| Usually, those commands can be run in bash from fish with a
| bash -c, or from a file.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Or via Bass[1], for things that modify the environment.
|
| [1] https://github.com/edc/bass
| duckerude wrote:
| > Or error messages which return translated commands?
|
| Fish does this in some cases: ~> echo $(true)
| fish: $(...) is not supported. In fish, please use '(true)'.
| echo $(true) ^
|
| > (I recognize not all commands can be translated, but all of
| those that would be run by a beginner can be)
|
| Not all of them, unfortunately.
|
| Consider `while true; do something; done`. Fish interprets this
| as an unclosed while loop, where `do` and `done` are ordinary
| commands. So if you enter it you don't get a syntax error, fish
| just waits for more input until you enter `end`. The same goes
| for `if` and `for`.
| Osiris wrote:
| I found that adding the "&&" operator recently has fixed that
| for a lot of common cases. I still prefer the "; and" syntax
| though.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Actually it is more "Finally, a command line shell for the
| 80s".
|
| "Xerox Alto"
|
| https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/3...
|
| Having grown through the UNIX adoption in the enterprise, it
| kind of feels ironic that nowadays bash is kind of seen as the
| UNIX shell, and in those days it was just one among many
| possibilities to configure on /etc/passwd
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| I think it's referencing the color support that didn't really
| hit until the 90s.
| snazz wrote:
| Bash is definitely seen as the "Linux shell", but most users
| of non-Linux Unixes and Unix-likes don't use Bash. macOS, for
| instance, now uses Zsh out of the box (although most Bash
| one-liners still run unmodified in Zsh).
|
| But Linux is the majority of the Unix-like market, so it (and
| therefore Bash) dominates.
| tssva wrote:
| macOS just recently switched to zsh as the default and
| doesn't change the shell for existing users so I imagine it
| is likely the majority of macOS users are still using bash.
| snazz wrote:
| True, although it gives you a pretty prominent notice
| that Zsh is now the preferred shell when you start
| Terminal for the first time after updating to Catalina.
| binaryanomaly wrote:
| Just enter "bash" when you need bash and exit it once you're
| done. Barely need this but sometimes it's useful.
|
| Fish imho offers superb usability, wouldn't want to miss it.
| lighthazard wrote:
| You lose all the fish goodies when you do this, no?
| Zardoz84 wrote:
| you only need to paste a line or two of bash. it's what I
| did when I have a problem with some online help that put a
| line that only works on bash
| riyadparvez wrote:
| Some commands are compatible with bash, but not
| compatible with zsh. I do the same thing when using zsh.
| binaryanomaly wrote:
| exactly.
| dorianmariefr wrote:
| happy user of fish with very few simple customizations:
| set fish_greeting function fish_prompt
| echo (set_color green)(prompt_pwd)(set_color normal)'> '
| end
|
| edit: also there is a change that didn't get mentioned: fish now
| accepts `A=1 echo $A` for instance without using `env A=1 echo
| $A` like at some point
| haarts wrote:
| Holy smokes! I've gotten used to the `env` prefix but this is
| what kept going wrong for me. Thanks for the tip!
| yborg wrote:
| >not wanting to see fish being friendly every launch
|
| The only thing I leave the default banner on is fish.
| otoburb wrote:
| Many of the comments in this thread refer to the sheer inertia of
| millions of LOC of bash script in the wild. This seems to be the
| main reason why Oil shell[1] aims to be "an upgrade path from
| bash to a better language and runtime".[2]
|
| I wish them luck.
|
| [1] https://www.oilshell.org/
|
| [2] https://www.oilshell.org/why.html
| chubot wrote:
| Thanks, that is indeed the purpose of Oil, and I also noticed
| so many comments here pointing out the compatibility issue.
|
| That is nearly "done" for Oil, as it runs thousands of lines of
| real bash scripts.
|
| There's a big list of known and mostly trivial differences
| here: https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.8.1/doc/known-
| differences...
|
| If you're a bash user and you want your scripts to run under
| Oil, I recommend testing it! If your script doesn't run, you'll
| probably get a better error message than bash gives you.
|
| Or you might motivate a change the OSH language (a cleaned-up
| bash). It's easier to change now than later.
|
| I'm still looking for help too:
|
| http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2019/12/09.html#help-wanted
|
| https://github.com/oilshell/oil/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aope...
|
| https://github.com/oilshell/oil/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aope...
| brightball wrote:
| For somebody who hasn't tried it, what are the advantages over
| something like Oh My Zsh?
| lgunsch wrote:
| I find it has two advantages. One, being quite a sophisticated
| auto-complete system. I haven't seen anything nearly as
| polished. The other advantage is it's easy to learn and
| configure. You can read the short manual and you'll know about
| every feature and keyboard shortcut that exists.
| Macha wrote:
| oh-my-zsh can be quite slow on very powerful machines for very
| simple tasks. Also having a shell default to most of the
| features you need makes docs simple compared to the million
| flags of zsh
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Oh my zsh always seemed to add several seconds to shell
| startup. Fish starts up instantly
| ufo wrote:
| One thing I like about Fish is that it works great out of the
| box, without needing to install plugins.
| jdudek wrote:
| It's a sane scripting language. It encouraged me to automate
| simple tasks, create handy functions etc. I don't have to
| google the for loop syntax every time I need it.
| derencius wrote:
| it's super fast (autocomplete, arrow up/down) and "looks cool"
| without any extra configuration.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| I think Fish is fantastic, but just can't use it because so many
| things rely on either Bash or Zsh. I've settled for a modest ZSH
| setup with Prezto and I'm pretty happy.
| pkulak wrote:
| Pretty easy to drop into bash for a second to copy paste
| something from the internet and introduce God-knows-what onto
| your system. ;)
|
| You can also set Fish to start up after bashrc (or whatever),
| so that you don't have to translate all your startup stuff.
| lgunsch wrote:
| In my years as a dev I haven't found many true dependencies on
| Bash/Zsh. For Ruby, rbenv and other solutions worked. For
| Python, there was virtualfish to make virtualenvs work
| properly. Although now pyenv works out of the box with Fish.
| Other than that, simply adding a shebang to scripts is
| sufficient.
|
| That being said, I don't go and convert the shell of all my AWS
| instances to Fish. I just keep my local shell as Fish.
| cuddlybacon wrote:
| I've been using fish for years now and cannot remember the
| last time something broke because it required bash but was
| run by fish.
|
| One thing I do differently than most is I don't make fish my
| system-wide default shell. I leave that as whatever the
| system default is. Instead I just make fish the default shell
| within the terminal emulator I use.
|
| Never had an issue with it, and it is much easier to setup as
| well.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Yeah, I think people miss that you don't have to `chsh`
| your shell. Perfectly fine to make your terminal launch
| `fish` instead of the default shell.
| joseluisq wrote:
| Fish shell is simple great. I use it for many years on my daily
| development on Linux/Mac without regret it. The way how it speeds
| up my software development process from the command line is
| invaluable. However I still use Bash for writing production
| scripts on my servers for different reasons like compatibility,
| requirements, etc. But when I get my server via SSH, Fish rocks
| also there.
| rightbyte wrote:
| "Finally, a command line shell for the 90s"
|
| I laughed so hard when I read their motto some years ago that I
| had to try it. I use it mainly for the nice autocomplete and
| write scripts in bash ...
|
| It is nice that they added "&&" for "and" etc. It was quite
| annoying until I got used to it.
| Jerry2 wrote:
| I gave it a try a while back but it apparently needs IPv6 to be
| enabled to use its web interface. Is this still the case?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| I've been using fish for a long time from the 1.x branch, after a
| long time using bash, and tcsh before that in the 90's. Before
| that the primitive CMD and DOS.
|
| I like much of what the new crew (who took it over) have done,
| but after installing it on a new machine recently I realized I
| didn't like their web configuration and some defaults. Which I
| almost never use, but a newbie would.
|
| First, terminals have much improved in the last three decades.
| There's no obvious reason a curses-like app couldn't take the
| place of the web app. Configuring the shell from the web is
| rather gratuitous and weird IMHO.
|
| A second, minor concern is the use of blue hues in their syntax
| highlighting defaults. Blue on black is rather unreadable, hard
| to see on its own, weakest of the colors due to eye sensitivity.
| It's also bad at night-time. I'd like to see a more
| neutral/warmer color palette for the default.
|
| I have other nitpicks, such as their docs are not good enough on
| how all the types of variables work, and why you pick one or the
| other, for example. They moved away from the daemon, and
| variables no longer get propagated across shells. That was a neat
| feature but they removed it around the time they instituted the
| web server. I don't really get those design choices, but there's
| still no friendlier shell.
| ridiculous_fish wrote:
| fish-shell dev here. Sounds like you have been using it longer
| than me!
|
| We'd love to do a curses version of fish_config. I think you're
| right the default colors could be warmer and still work on
| light backgrounds (terminals don't publish their colors so the
| defaults have to work on light and dark).
|
| Variables are still instantly propagated, it just uses fifos
| instead of a daemon!
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| > They moved away from the daemon, and variables no longer get
| propagated across shells.
|
| Universal variable changes should be propagated across
| different fish processes. However, it looks like the
| maintainers are questioning whether they should live on.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| I had just tried it and it didn't work. But looking at the
| help, it needs a -U not a -u, thanks.
| vesche wrote:
| I've been using fish as my default shell for ~3 years now. The
| faint gray history auto-complete / search that appears when
| typing commands alone is a killer feature. urxvt + fish + ranger
| + sauce code pro font = me loving my terminal experience a ton.
| Thanks fish devs!
| tjonsson wrote:
| Fun story. Couple of years ago, a few colleague's and I were
| casually chatting at our desk about fish shell. When suddenly we
| hear someone a few desk away saying with a big smile: I wrote
| that!
|
| We were sitting next to Axel...
| linsomniac wrote:
| I gave fish a serious try last year, and really loved the
| command-line completion, but the vi mode editing was a deal-
| breaker. It's minimally usable, in particular it doesn't support
| command combinations like dw, cw, f/ ct. etc... In the end I
| found a history completion plugin for zsh that worked as well as
| fish, and ended up going back to zsh.
|
| The vi mode issue seems pretty hard to resolve, like have to
| completely reimplement the editing hard. You can, as an
| alternative, drop to a real editor if you need a real editor for
| the command. Here's the issue related to it:
| https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/4019
|
| It's very interesting, but I'm pretty dead set on vi history
| editing, so it wasn't for me.
| Gaelan wrote:
| I just tried dw, cw, f/, and df/, and they all worked just
| fine.
| devnonymous wrote:
| For anyone who needs to/prefers to use bash:
|
| > One nice feature for fish history is the ability to filter
| through the history based on what is typed into the shell.
|
| Add this to your .inputrc ## arrow up
| "\e[A":history-search-backward ## arrow down
| "\e[B":history-search-forward
|
| > Fish does not enter any command that begins with a space into
| its history file, essentially treating it like an incognito
| command.
|
| Add "HISTCONTROL=ignorespace" to your .bashrc
|
| > A new addition in fish 3.0 is the --private flag that can be
| used to start fish in private mode; it stops all subsequent
| commands from being logged in the history file.
|
| run unset HISTFILE
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| The inputrc change is nice, but not quite the same as what fish
| does.
|
| If I type a part of a previous command in and then press the up
| arrow in fish it will only cycle through history records that
| contain that as a substring (which is really the killer part of
| the feature).
|
| (Yes I know you can do similar things in bash but you have to
| press other keys to put it in the history search mode)
| devnonymous wrote:
| I agree, although otoh, the inputrc change is not specific to
| bash. It is useful for any cli that uses readline (mysql,
| python prompt, pgcli,...). Other useful inputrc settings I
| have in mine :
|
| # - when performing completion in the middle of a word, do
| not insert characters # from the completion that match
| characters after point in the word being # completed
| set skip-completed-text on
|
| # - displays possible completions using different colors
| according to file type. set colored-stats on
|
| # - show completed prefix in a different color
| set colored-completion-prefix on
|
| # - jump temporarily to matching open parenthesis
| set blink-matching-paren on set expand-tilde on
| set history-size -1 set history-preserve-point on
| szhu wrote:
| Fish 3 was released almost two years ago in December 2018. It's a
| little weird seeing these features being referred to as "new"!
| miguelmota wrote:
| Fish Shell has a lot of cool feature but lack of `ctrl-r`
| functionality is preventing me from using it full time.
| brinox wrote:
| You can just type in anything you'd like as when using Ctrl+R
| and then just press the up arrow key to perform a fuzzy match
| in your history.
| grimgrin wrote:
| Does fish have its own inputrc ?
|
| I'm sure it uses inputrc or similar, giving you a thing like:
| $if mode=emacs "\e[A": history-search-backward
| "\e[B": history-search-forward $endif
|
| aka, type "fish" and press up arrow to only go through
| history that starts with "fish"
|
| also, how would you configure fish to use something that
| doesn't lean on arrows? ^r has its own useful power that can
| be separate from my use-case of arrows mentioned above, if
| not just bc you don't have to move off the homerow ;)
| snazz wrote:
| You can press ^E to complete the current autocompletion, or
| keep typing a little more to disambiguate if needed.
|
| edit: this originally said ^D, which is EOF, not
| autocomplete :)
| triceratops wrote:
| It lacks "ctrl+r" because it does history search even better
| than bash. It shows auto-suggestions based on your history. I
| find ctrl+r when I'm in bash kind of annoying, and not as good
| at searching.
| krisgenre wrote:
| I am using fish along with fzf[1] and it makes `ctrl-r` even
| better.
|
| [1] https://github.com/junegunn/fzf
| fimdomeio wrote:
| Can't remember if it's something special I did with my fish
| config but ctrl+r works for me and is actually better than
| bash.
| nikisweeting wrote:
| The _default_ mode in fish is Ctrl-R mode, the shortcut is
| redundant.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-29 23:00 UTC)