Re: Completion script for the ctags program

[Oliver Kiddle <opk@xxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:
> Thanks, I'm surprised we don't have one but it looks like we only have etags.  I've
> submitted it.

What you've committed looks garbled with the e-mail pasted into the
middle of the function.

Indentation can be corrected when committing new functions with minimal
effort and without need to note the alteration in ChangeLog etc. I hate
doing it later because it breaks the usefulness of git blame so would
appreciate if you could make a note to do that upfront.

That said, it is better that these get applied quickly rather than
missed and forgotten. Which leads me to reconsider that I never
applied the patch in 44804 to create a separate contrib directory for
completions. I would add "suppport for only some variants of a command"
to the criteria.

That patch mainly didn't get applied because of the outstanding question
of what the directory/configure option should be named. Greg Klanderman
replied favouring 'Unsupported' or 'Unmaintained'. I think I prefer
'Contrib' because they aren't necessarily "Unmaintained" and anything
beginning with U breaks my habit of expecting C/U/C<tab> to complete the
directories there with Unix. Any other suggestions/comments on that?

Given that we need to correct the file anyway, it is probably not too
late in this case. Do you want to fix it or shall I do it when moving it
across to the "Contrib" or whatever we call it directory?

Oliver