Re: Completion function for bitkeeper?

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>]

Danek Duvall wrote:
> I still maintain that passing in the compadd arguments both on the
> commandline and in $expl is a bug, as it's duplicative, redundant,
> repetitive, and redundant.

But at least it doesn't do the same thing twice over again once more...

About the only alternative is to hold the values in a fixed array or
(preferably) associative array and allow functions to grope around in it.
That would eliminate the explicit expl which crops up everywhere.
However, it would need setting and unsetting for each function where
expl is currently local.  I suspect it needs lower level help to do it
neatly.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************