Re: problem with _arguments exclusion lists

[Oliver Kiddle <opk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> 
> 1) Add an option to _arguments, that says that it should always try to
>    complete options after options specified with `-x-:...' or `-x+:...'.
> 2) Also, make it try completing options in those places even if the new
>    _arguments-option is not given but the action for the argument
>    returns non-null.

I'm happy with that.

>    The `returns non-null' is, of course, problematic again if the option-
>    argument has to be completed with a `->state' action.  But I think if

That's a bit of a pity.

>    And add a small utility function that can be put into an argument-
>    action and tests if the string typed so far matches some pattern.

Agreed.

>    For simplicity I would make it use the description given in the
>    _arguments-spec.

I'll be interested to see how you do that. I think the function will
have wider uses than just from _arguments such as from _alternative so
it would be good if it can cope with that.

>  And if a simple pattern match is enough for most
>    cases, this makes it sound as if we should just add a new action-
>    syntax, avoiding the need for an extra function consisting of only

I prefer the extra two-line function to extending _arguments' action
spec syntax. The function is a more general method which may be more
widely useful and it keeps things more in zsh shell syntax than in
_arguments syntax. Also, I can't see that guards on _arguments specs
would be particularly useful when matches are generated.

> Ok, would this be enough for now?  Later we can, as suggested by Oliver,
> add a way to change the behaviour on a per-option basis, using the
> option from 1) as the default.  If we ever meet a command that needs
> that much control.

Agreed.

Oliver