Re: PATCH: _functions for "functions"

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 22,  5:54pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: _functions for "functions"
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} 
} > [...] it seems silly not to complete anything at all for ["functions"].
} 
} Exactly the same is applicable for aliases.

Not quite true, since with "functions" you can't define anything, all you
can do is print what you already have.  With "alias" the chances are pretty
good that you're creating something from scratch and don't really want one
of the existing names -- in fact, it might make more sense to complete
command names on the assumption that you want the alias to override one.

That isn't necessarily an objection to using your patch in the meantime.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com