Re: Completion for aplay from alsa-utils

[Sebastian Gniazdowski <sgniazdowski@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 00:17, dana <dana@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2 Nov 2019, at 16:13, Sebastian Gniazdowski <sgniazdowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > the submitted completion is in file _alsa-utils

Thanks for the review.

> And you can add arecord to #compdef, since it's basically the same thing as
> aplay

True, diff on help messages reveals no differences.

> Some functional issues i noticed:
>
> * _arguments should have -S
>
> * There are no exclusions for any of the alias options (e.g., -D and --device
>   should be exclusive)

How to add them?

> * --device, --file-type, and --process-id-file should take arguments

--file-type and --process-id-file take arguments without =. How to add
arguments to their spec, should it be +?

> * All short aliases of long options that take an argument should have + (e.g.,
>   -c+ for --channels=)
>
> * -v is cumulative, but there is no * in the spec

What do you mean?

> Would also be nice to have better optarg completion (there are no argument
> descriptions, some of the options take pre-defined arguments that are listed
> in the documentation that you could offer, &c.), and taking the option
> descriptions from the help output verbatim doesn't look that nice here, but
> i'm probably being too pedantic now

I think that editing of the descriptions provided the number of
options is large would be quite artificial. I mean I could express a
few options by my own words, however on long term I would have to drop
this because it would be an overwhelming task.

-- 
Sebastian Gniazdowski
News: https://twitter.com/ZdharmaI
IRC: https://kiwiirc.com/client/chat.freenode.net:+6697/#zplugin
Blog: http://zdharma.org