Re: PATCH: completion

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tanaka Akira wrote:

> But I feel X toolkit options specs in _xterm is bit redundant.
> I think _xt_arguments such as following is useful.
> 
> # Since XrmParseCommand does not accept short options, it should not
> # use "-s".
> 
> _xt_arguments () {
>   _arguments \
>     '-geometry:geometry:_x_geometry' \
>     '-display:display:_x_display' \
>     ...
>     '-xrm:X resources:' \
>     "$@"
> }

Hey, that's good, I didn't think about adding such files -- we could
use that to replace `_x_options', too (with `_x_arguments', which
could probably still be a pattern function).

> # _gtk_arguments may be also useful.
> 
> Where is a suitable directory to store this?
> 
> Completion/User or Completion/Base (or Completion/X)?

Now that I've added `Pbmplus', I'd vote for `Completion/X' (and later
`Completion/Gnu', etc.). We'll have to move some things around when we 
come to the next open release anyway...

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx