Completing for "find" and _regex_arguments (Re: PATCH: Re: sudo completion problem)

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 4,  9:02pm, Tanaka Akira wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: sudo completion problem
}
} In article <000601bfb599$a9219f80$21c9ca95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
}   "Andrej Borsenkow" <Andrej.Borsenkow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
} 
} > So, the question is - how useful would it be to allow "named,
} > structured, ..." arguments? The point is, description vs. shell code.
} 
} We need intermediate solution for a completion function of such
} commands: more powerful than _arguments and easier than shell
} function.  But more difficult than _arguments, maybe.
} 
} My idea is already implemented: _regex_arguments.

Indeed, I think _regex_arguments is just the thing here.  In fact, I said
so, back in 11018.

On May 4,  3:40pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: sudo completion problem
}
} Personally I find _arguments a whole lot more readable than
} _regex_arguments. If that could be improved, I'd be glad.

Is there any chance that it could now be rewritten using extendedglob
patterns, rather than parsing its own RE syntax?

On the other hand, that might not make it any more readable.

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