Re: Latest patched development version

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 11, 11:05am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: Latest patched development version
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} > Is there any reason that -tc simply can't be implicit?
} 
} I wanted to leave the previous behavior unchanged as much as
} possible. The `-T' is the only case where multiple compctl's were
} tested in all other cases making -t<whatever> implicit would make
} things differ from the way it was before my patches.

So that's the reason -tc *isn't* implicit, but nobody's yet said why
it *can't* or shouldn't be.

IMHO,

* There aren't very many cases of the previous behavior (other than -T)
  where another suitable completion would be found.
* Therefore, making -tc the default wouldn't affect anyone's existing
  completions very much, if at all.
* Even there were another suitable completion, the -tc behavior is
  probably the more desirable one.

} Anyway before I change anything I would like to hear a bit more what
} people would like to have, ok?

Of course.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com