Re: Help Request/Bug Report: comparguments causes _arguments to fail in certain cases

[Dan Arad <dan1994@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the great clarifications! I'll try to stick to the correct
technical terms.

This isn't happening because of an unknown command, it's because the
> historic behavior of _normal is to return all files when none match
> the specific completer.

...

However, nothing will have been "compadd"ed by _python at the point at
> which it calls _normal.  Anything that gets added is being added as
> consequence of calling _normal, not as a consequence of calling

_python.


I suspected as much, but I'm new to zsh and completion, so I had some hard
time following the debug logs and figuring this out.

_python_or_script() {
>   _python_script_words_backup
>   _python "$@" && _compskip=all
> }
> compdef _python_or_script python


This works like a charm!
The only thing I did different is to use the `#compdef -p` form at the
beginning of the file so I could give the same pattern as that of the
`_python` function.

> and not before. I also use `_compskip=all`
>
> That doesn't actually do very much once you are beyond -first-.  It
> aborts the current level of _dispatch but doesn't prevent the outer
> _default that called _python from continuing on into -default-, which
> I think you'll find to be the place your extra matches are coming
> from.


This `_compskip` prevents the inner `_dispatch` from calling the
`_python_script` function more than once.
An example I've seen, is with the command line `python .vscode/ps.py` (I
use the .vscode directory as a place for temporary files as it is git
ignored).
In this case, without `_compskip=all`, the inner `_dispatch` calls
`_python_script` once with `service=.vscode/ps.py` and once with
`service=ps.py`.
In my case this doubles the time to produce completions which may be
critical depending on the way the user has written his script.

To conclude, I would really like to thank everybody who took part in this
discussion.
This is my first open source project, and I was really hoping to provide a
good user experience.
It was a great experience for me to have such a productive conversation,
and I really appreciate the time you've put into providing detailed answers
in a welcoming manner.

Have a great day!
Dan

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:14 AM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:12 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > aborts the current level of _dispatch but doesn't prevent the outer
> > _default that called _python from continuing on into -default-, which
>
> Typo, that should say "... the outer _dispatch that ..."
>


-- 
Dan Arad
dan1994@xxxxxxxxx