Re: PATCH: completion for file descriptors

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:

> ...
> 
> If put _file_descriptors in Core because
> it will be used by _redirect and because other things like _options is
> there - it can always be moved.

Yes, function moving and ordering before 4.0...

The directories we have now have mostly historical reasons and several 
functions could sensibly be moved in other directories even now.

What I would like is a more logical ordering. I haven't really thought 
about this yet, but maybe a Core with some of the functions it
contains now, a directory with functions like _arguments (not really
generating completions, only helping to add them), one directory with
all those functions that generate a certain type of matches (options,
jobs, pids, file-descriptors, etc.). And then certainly one for the
builtin commands.

The other stuff is harder to decide. _rpm, for example can also be
useful on non-Linux systems. I don't know debian, but I guess the
commands from that directory can be useful elsewhere, too. So maybe we 
should package the functions in a way that reflects what the commands
do (network, package-managers, ...).

I'd like to hear suggestions about all this. (And now Andrej comes and 
says that we should put all the GNU commands on the side... which
wouldn't work with the ordering-by-what-they-do, of course. I still
think there should be only one function per command and we try to find 
out what to complete by investigating the environment inside the
functions.)


Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx