Re: PATCH: _a2ps completion

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Zefram wrote:

> Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> >Ok, I wasn't aware of the possibilities of *newer versions* of GNU
> >a2ps. So I change my statement to: I'm very much against completing
> >all files unconditionally. We should do that only if the a2ps is a
> >newer GNU version that supports automatic conversion and whatnot. Ok?
> 
> I too didn't know a2ps had changed to do this stuff.  Considering
> only older versions, I'm still in favour of completing all files
> unconditionally.  PostScript (and HTML, and TeX) files are perfectly
> valid text files, and therefore perfectly valid subjects for all commands
> that deal with text files, including a program that renders plain text
> in PostScript.
> 
> >My a2ps (4.10.1) at least produces only pages containing the
> >PostScript code for PostScript files. And since only few people will
> >probably want that, I still think PostScript files shouldn't be
> >completed for such a version by default.
> 
> If we go the way you suggest, we might as well not complete *.c as
> an argument to gcc -o.  Or one's own username as an argument to su.
> Or /vmunix as an argument to rm.

Hey, good idea... ;-)

>  Where does it end?  Least surprise is
> the key.

Depends on what surprises you and what not, obviously.

But to repeat: since I can easily configure my setup, I won't start
crying if the patch makes it into the base. And I'm outvoted already...

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx