z vs zoxide

[Susensio]

How does this fish plugin compares to zoxide?

[lydell]

I’ve been using zoxide for a year or so. Tried this plugin for a couple of minutes. This plugin does not appear to have zoxides’s “also works as a regular cd command” feature. Apparently I’m so used to having z and cd in one that I quickly went back to zoxide.

[yujinyuz]

The only difference I saw was that with this plugin, if you press z<TAB> it will show all, while in zoxide it doesn't.
You have to press z foo<SPACE><TAB> to get the actual completion.

So, I guess that's just how it works because z also acts as cd

[jeeftor]

I'm using zoxide - but I prefer the z funcitonality and am thinking of bailing on zoxide due to this annoyance

[mlncn]

I am confused— i want to switch to fish from bash so installed this. I now realize i have been using Zoxide, not — but all that aside, the behavior i am used and want is:

I am in a directory with subdirectories something and other; if i type z som<tab> it will autocomplete to z something/ and take me there. And of course if i am later somewhere else entirely, and type z som<enter>, it will take me there.

With this plugin and fish however tabs do not autocomplete to the directories i am in. Fish (or z?) will sometimes suggest random completions that i need to press the left arrow to accept, but they are not generally anything that works with z ("did not match any results").

This z does not also act as cd for me— z ../ does not work for example.

In short my experience is what lydell noted, not what yujinyuz noted, and i am wondering if there are different configurations or ways of installing (i did fisher install jethrokuan/z) that would make a difference?

[jeeftor]

I also used z and found it superior because a single command I could hit tab for completion