Re: _arguments problems

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 4, 10:59am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote (in 9559):
} Subject: Re: _arguments problems
}
} *But* if we do that there wouldn't be a way to get at the options in
} cases like this one (ok, it works with longer options but with short
} ones like these one would have to type the whole option to complete
} it). I'm really not sure if this is a good idea, I could only convince 
} myself to build that patch because one can always set the
} prefix-needed style to false for such commands.
} 
} I'd like to hear other opinions: does anyone think that this might
} surprise users? Or maybe I'm worrying too much about to special a
} case...

On Feb 4,  3:18pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote (in 9568):
} Subject: Re: _arguments problems
}
} That's a completely different problem. And since the option-rest specs 
} do that I agree that normal rest specs should do the same.

So ... should we *not* apply 9559 ?

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