On 2016-11-29 19:36, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >>> From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net >>> Cc: 25025@debbugs.gnu.org, clement.pit@gmail.com >>> Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 11:06:03 -0500 >>> >>>> Why does it need to be split? A shell command can (even should) be >>>> handed to the shell as a single string. >>> >>> Currently it's not a shell command, because a shell isn't being used. >>> My other suggestion was to use a shell: >>> >>>>> It might be more intuitive to actually use a shell and then the user >>>>> would enter a shell command (though inserting a shell into things >>>>> might bring more complications). >> >> If it doesn't use a shell, then it has no business quoting commands or >> their parts using shell-related APIs. >> >> So yes, I think using a shell would be TRT here. Can someone please >> work on a patch in that direction? This problem exists for a long >> time, so I hope we could solve it soon. > > Hmm, the difficulty in using a shell is that the current code wants to > parse the command into interpreter and arguments in order to match > against `python-shell-completion-native-disabled-interpreters'. That doesn't prevent us from using a shell. We run the command unmodified through a shell, and we split it and analyze it separately to decide whether to enable completion. But we don't split and reassemble it before running it. Clément.