Re: comments in completion

[Bruce Stephens <B.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx>]

schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> It wouldn't have to be a list of descriptions; one string would be
> sufficient. (That's the best you get now with -X anyway.)

> My point was that you can't *just* extend the -K function.  You might
> have perfectly good completion that doesn't use -K but that needs to
> compute an explanation string. 

Sure.  I must admit, I was thinking of the programmable ones, but you're quite 
right.

schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> It'd probably be sufficient to make a variant of -X that applies
> expansions in the manner of -s. 

Wouldn't this be a bit clunky with programmable completion?  Surely if I'm 
using a function to generate completions (a list of jobs, or a list of 
suitable hostnames or whatever) then it would be natural to explain them 
there?  Am I misunderstanding something; I confess it feels a bit yucky to 
have two places where descriptions come from?