Re: Two missing completion functions that bug me

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote: 

> > 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?

That sounds reasonable. I think the current behaviour (without your
other patch) should be the default because I think it is more common
but I'm not particularly bothered.

> 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

Having just worked out how _arguments currently handles the situation,
I'd happy for it to be kept it as it is. It works in the most sensible
way which is possibly useful for some commands and not too harmful for
others.

Oliver

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie