Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Is it possible to apply file masks to counsel search without modifying the base command? #1688
Counsel is a library providing multiple search commands (e.g.
Note also that some (maybe all, I haven't checked) Counsel search commands already accept a prefix argument C-u which allows you to specify extra flags, such as file extension regexps, prior to completion.
See also discussion in #1408 (comment).
Which feature are you referring to? The prefix argument? If so, I don't think it's clearly documented anywhere (although you might be able to infer it from the optional arguments listed for commands like C-hf
Doc fix PRs are always welcome (as a mere user/contributor, I won't be personally inclined to improve documentation in this area until I have time to think more about the wishlist redesign mentioned in #1408 and #1559).
Yes. That's what I mean.
But even the function args are documented like this:
We are not likely to know how to apply the extra args.
But it's alright. Useful tips like
Like I said:
Actually, those are well-documented Emacs features that Ivy just adapts to its own needs; see
The relevant search commands (
What way? Please try to be more specific when describing issues, it's not always clear what you're referring to.
If you're talking about prefix argument handling, then
Can you please elaborate? Do you mean that the search term can be mixed together with extra command-line options, like in #1559?
What does "it" refer to? Again, please be more explicit when describing issues/scenarios and expected vs actual behaviour.
Oh, sorry. Let me fix my issue.
What I mean is
That's to be expected, given that #1559 hasn't landed yet.
WDYM by "use functions" and "define extra prefix"? You can programmatically set a prefix argument by setting
No need for
Won't this also be possible with vanilla Counsel after #1559 lands?
If #1559 doesn't address all your voiced concerns, can you please clarify the purpose of this issue / why you reopened it?