Re: Completion function for bitkeeper?

[Danek Duvall <duvall@emufarm.org>]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:04:56AM +0100, Oliver Kiddle wrote:

> Having $expl stuff added after the first word is exactly the behaviour
> that is wanted in virtually 100% of all cases.

So let me ask, what am I doing wrong that makes me believe that I don't
want it in my case?  Is there a conventional way of passing arguments to
an action helper function and not getting them mixed up with arguments
intended for compadd?  Is there functionality I'm missing because I'm
not doing the conventional thing?

> > > How's that bitkeeper function doing these days by the way? Is it
> > > at a stage we could include with zsh? Does it conflict with _sccs?
> > 
> > Well, none of the usual zsh folks commented on it, so while it works for
> 
> I suspect none of the usual zsh folks use bitkeeper.

That may be the case; I still might have expected some comments on
style, missing functionality (like I'm not passing anything to compadd ;-)
or things completely unrelated to bitkeeper.

> If you send me your latest version, I'll take a look.

I'll send that out later today.

> >   - I don't think that it conflicts with _sccs at all, but it might be
> >     nice to get _sccs to use _sccsfiles in the appropriate places.
> 
> I'll be interested to see if that does anything useful for sccs. I use
> Sun teamware at work which is sccs underneath so I do use the sccs
> completion.

As do I (I actually use it primarily; I hardly touch bk), so I do have a
version of _sccs that uses _sccsfiles.  It's not completely useless.  :)

Danek