Re: Redirection completion

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:

> ...
> 
> I don't understand the reasoning:  why does this need to be different
> from the way options or arguments work?  For redirection it would seem
> to be a similar sort of case, where you might want to match on the
> command name in the normal way.  Values certainly demand different
> handling.  But then surely the logical thing is to keep the type
> separate from the argument and have
> 
> :completion::complete:-value-:GZIP:
> 
> as the context?

In terms of nicely separated parts (of the context name) I'm with you,
but think of things like:

  LDFLAGS='-I<TAB>

I've got to play and think some more...


Bye
  Sven

-- 
Sven Wischnowsky                          wischnow@xxxxxxxxx