Re: Misc. questions/remarks on new completion stuff

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> I think "complist" could do with a better name.  I've repeatedly been deluded
> into thinking that it's only used when generating completion listings, when
> really it adds possible matches that can be inserted on the command line.

Right, any suggestions, anyone? (Hm, `compgen' looks ugly.)


> Speaking of complist, what's the difference between
> 	compadd -m foo bar baz boing
> and
> 	complist -k '(foo bar baz boing)'
> ??  How much other overlap is there between these two commands?

Not much more. `compadd -m $...' is `complist -s '$...''. The overlap
was only caused by adding the `-m' option to `compadd' which I added
for the cases where one wants more control over the other strings and
flags stored with the matches and doesn't want to do the matching by
hand.

> In Functions/Completion/*, I think "#array" is a bad name for that tag.  The
> "#function" tag means the function will actually generate matches, that is,
> call compadd or complist.  But a "#array" file doesn't generate an array of
> matches -- it generates an array of arguments to complist.  Why not use the
> tag "#complist" or "#complist-args" so it's more obvious what's going on?

I choose `#array' only to quickly finish the examples so that we can
play with them and didn't like it at the time, too. Although the
`#array' files have to set up an array (with the name of the file).

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx