Re: _arguments problems

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> 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 ?

[ It's 9560 ]

Personally, I'd prefer to not use the first hunk of 9560. But the
second one is needed in any case.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx