Re: Completion script for the ctags program

[Jacob Gelbman <gelbman@xxxxxxxxx>]

> On Mar 7, 2021, at 3:42 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the revision.  Not a full review; just two points:
> 
> Jacob Gelbman wrote on Sun, 07 Mar 2021 19:18 +00:00:
>>> On Feb 24, 2021, at 8:24 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Jacob Gelbman wrote on Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 01:20:24 -0600:
>>>>   "--fields=[include selected extension fields (flags afmikKlnsStz)]:flags"
>>> 
>>> Recommend to move the afmikKlnsStz thing to after the colon, so it'll be
>>> shown at a more appropriate point.  Also, it would be helpful to display
>>> descriptions to the flags using, e.g., «compset» (for the leading plus
>>> sign) followed by «_values -s ''».
>> 
>> I moved the possible values to the argument description, but I don’t 
>> have enough time to figure out how to complete them automatically right 
>> now.
> 
> Like this:
> 
> _f() { _arguments : '--foo:bar: _values -s "" baz "a[access]" "f[file]" "i[inheritance]"' }

Right, I can do that. I wasn’t sure if the extra + and - symbols would make it complicated.
> 
>>>> elif [ "$state" = "languages" ]; then
>>>>   _values -s , languages $languages
>>> 
>>> Don't pass unsanitized command output to a builtin.  I don't know the
>>> fix off the top of my head.
> 
> This point has been neither responded to nor implemented.

I sanitize the output a little bit, by cutting just the first word from the list that’s returned. That fixes lines like "OldC++ [disabled]" And I’m not that worried about possibly feeding in incorrectly formatted data. What’s the worst that could happen? The listing will look messed up?

> 
> Daniel