Re: 4.3.13 changes

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 12,  8:51pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: 4.3.13 changes
}
} On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:13:49 +0200
} Nikolai Weibull <now@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
} > Can you please have a look at the '*:: :->file' problem [...] ?
} > The gist of it is that options don't complete after
} > arguments if you use "::" instead of ":".
} 
} I can't see any evidence not being able to complete options thereafter
} is deliberate.

I suspect the internals that support _arguments assume that you don't
mix arguments with options except when the arguments are those of a
particular option; that is, that a command always looks like

	command-name command-options command-arguments

where command-options may be zero or more sets of

	option option-arguments

I seem to recall discussions on the austin-group (POSIX) list about
the correctess of allowing more options to follow command-arguments, and
incompatibilities introduced by variant utilities which allow that.

The very fact that NORMARG is defined as "_the_ position of the first
normal argument" (my emphasis) seems to imply that comparguments does
not expect there to be more than one cluster of options, with all the
non-option arguments following it.