Re: Completion function for bitkeeper?

[Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk>]

Peter wrote:
> Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> > compadd arguments aren't passed in $expl. They may coincidentally
> > happen to be lying around in $expl but only because $expl was chosen as
> > a place to have _description store them temporarily before passing them
> > on.
> 
> The subtlety of the distinction is a bit lost on me.  Isn't that exactly
> the problem Danek is worried about?

I would only share Danek's worry if it was undefined as to where a
function should go looking for compadd options passed to it. It isn't
undefined - compadd options are only explicitly passed to other
completion functions in the positional parameters.

If we take this example:

_foo() {
  local expl
  _description foo expl foos
  _bar "$expl[@]"
}

As a result of zsh having dynamic scoping, _foo's $expl is still
visible inside _bar. _foo happens to use $expl for storing compadd
options to pass on. Knowing this the author of _bar could take
advantage of it but it'd be bad programming (and might break if _bar
was called from elsewhere). To actively prevent it, we need static
scoping.

Does that make sense now?

Oliver

PS. As an aside, needing the expl parameter to _wanted is somewhat
pointless.

________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________