Re: old or new style completion?

[Atom Smasher <atom@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Clint Adams wrote:

> > 2) whether i declare "cpv" as an alias or a function, the completion 
> > system "interprets it" as the command is rsync, not cpv. if there's no 
> > way around that it seems like a problem with the completion system... 
> > no?
>
> You are incorrect.  Try cpv() { rsync "$@" }
>
> You will not get rsync completion unless you do a "compdef _rsync cpv". 
> You could demand cp-like completion instead with "compdef _cp cpv", 
> though that would not be useful.  If you are witnessing different 
> results, perhaps you still have your alias set.
=====================

yeah, i still had the alias defined; now it works fine as a function. 
since cpv is rsync, but neutered to the point of only copying to/from the 
local system i wouldn't want "compdef _rsync cpv", and i'm not even sure i 
need "compdef _cp cpv", since the default of auto-completing directories 
and files seems to work fine.


--
        ...atom

 ________________________
 http://atom.smasher.org/
 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
 -------------------------------------------------

	"Facts are stupid things."
		-- Ronald Reagan (1988)