Re: Two missing completion functions that bug me

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:

> --- Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but when you're allowed to have other options intervene between
> > an
> > option and its argument (as in `tar -fxv file' for example) there has
> > to
> > be some way to prevent completion from inserting the space after
> > `-f'.
> 
> I accept this but would argue that there are more commands which don't
> allow other options to intervene. Things like tar can be achieved with
> with states. Maybe _arguments needs some way to describe whether or not
> options can intervene between an option and its argument.

Yes, I was beginning to think the same.  Would it be enough to make my 
other patch optional (i.e. adding a option to _arguments to select
either that behaviour or to de-select it)?  Which should be the
default?

> Things get
> messy if more than one of the options take an argument.

If I understand you correctly... I said in one of my previous messages 
that _arguments can do that.  Do we have to disallow it?  I'd prefer
it if we could keep it, mostly because I don't see a reason to make it 
optional -- either it's the intended reason or the specs given to
_arguments or the command line are messed up (only in the last case
there may be a reason to make _arguments smart enough to detect it and 
notify the user).

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx