Re: PATCH: compadd (+ questions)

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> > Some way of supplying options to
> > new-completion-examples would be good.
> 
> I don't understand what kind of options you mean here.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about that.  I meant that if people are going to
be using whatever-it's-going-to-be-called more or less en bloc, it
would be helpful to have ways of telling it whether or not to bind the
widgets it's just defined (and maybe other things like that).
However, since it's almost certainly going to be sourced, it's hard to
supply options in a simple way.  Maybe I'm looking too far ahead, but
if it becomes necessary, a single assoc array would probably be the
thing.  (I spellt that necessarray the first time.)

I hope gradually to move over to the new completion forms and was
simply wondering about things I ought to be looking out for.

I, too, found the new [[-tests a little confusing at first sight.  I'm
inclined to think maybe they should be limited to those that can't be
done so easily in the standard way.  For example, I don't see why
people shouldn't use (( NMATCHES )) rather than [[ ! -nmatches 0 ]] .
But I haven't really got a proper grip on using this yet.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>       Tel: +39 050 844536
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/
Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy