Re: PATCH: Re: Backticks and other tricks

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:

> --- Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 
> 
> > Anyway, what I really wanted to say (and that's why it's on
> > -workers): 
> > if you try this with a `&& return 0' after the `_arguments ...'
> > you'll 
> > notice that competion after, e.g. `-ef1:' yields nothing.  That's a
> > result of the change that removed the 300-return-value -- it has
> > added 
> > the option itself and hence `_arguments' returns zero.  Ugly.  Very.
> 
> I agree that it is a pity this can't be done anymore when you have
> state ->actions but I don't think it is as ugly as using
> compstate[nmatches] would be. We just have to use `&& ret=0' or similar
> and rely on checking of $state. The only other thing I can think of is
> modifying _main_complete to use compstate[nmatches] when deciding
> whether to move on to the next completer and allowing completion
> functions for commands to not bother about their return code. I'm not
> sure I like that though.

I'm sure I don't like it.  It would be quite sensible to write a
completer that adds something but return non-zero -- effectively
offering just some extra matches.

> > So for now let's use the patch below.  It adds the options only if
> > there is no `->state' action to use or if we are not in the same word
> > after the option.
> 
> I don't really understand this but it sounds like you're not going to
> be adding options in cases where they should be - options and states
> can both add matches together.

It not only sounds like that.  But it isn't as bad as it sounds,
actually I quite like it after thinking it over again.  The patch
makes be *not* completed only if 1) a `->state' action was executed
(i.e. prepared) *and* if 2) the matches for the `->state' have to be
completed in the same word after the option.

If the option-argument comes in its own word, options are completed.
The only case where the patch would cause trouble is that there are
two (or more) options, one being a prefix of the other and the
prefixish one gets an argument that has to come directly after the
option.  A *very* seldom case I would say.  And I would guess that in
most or all occurrences of such a situation the possible completions
for the option-argument are simple enough to not require a `->state'
action in which case this should work, too.

> Once we have this finalised, I will go through checking the return
> codes of functions (and adding -A "-*" and -S options to _arguments)
> but I don't have much time over the next two weeks.

I hope the return-value behaviour of _arguments is in the final form.

Bye
 Sven

P.S.: Why does your MUA put your name into =?iso-8859-1?...?= ?

--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx