Re: completion: _normal after argument

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:16:10 +0000 (UTC)
Martin Vaeth <martin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> for some scripts I am currently writing some completion functions.
> The syntax of the call should be
> 
> foo [lots of complicated options] CMD [shell-command with options]
> 
> Naturally, since the options can be treated with _arguments in
> a standard way, I want to use something like
> 
> _arguments -C -s -S -A '-*' : \
>  --optA=....  \
>  --optB...  \
>  -q... \
> ...
>  '1:command:->cmds' \
>  '*::command:->normal'
> 
> It is clear to me what to do in case $state == cmds
> But what to do in case $state == normal?
> Essentially, I want to call of course _normal
> (after cutting the "options+CMD" part from the words array and
> decreasing the CURRENT parameter correspondingly).
> But how to find where the "options+CMD" part has finished?

You can use _arguments -n.

   With the option -n, _arguments sets the parameter NORMARG to the
   position of the first normal argument in the $words array,  i.e.
   the position after the end of the options.  If that argument has
   not been reached, NORMARG is  set  to  -1.   The  caller  should
   declare  `integer NORMARG' if the -n option is passed; otherwise
   the parameter is not used.

Supposedly you don't even need to do that, however:

   *:::message:action
          This describes how arguments  (usually  non-option  argu‐
          ments,  those  not  beginning with - or +) are to be com‐
          pleted when neither of the first two forms was  provided.
          Any number of arguments can be completed in this fashion.

          With  two  colons  before  the message, the words special
          array and the CURRENT special parameter are  modified  to
          refer  only  to  the  normal arguments when the action is
          executed or evaluated.  With three colons before the mes‐
          sage  they are modified to refer only to the normal argu‐
          ments covered by this description.

I have a feeling I've had trouble with that in the past though (and,
obviously, no one in their senses would try to understand _arguments).

pws