Re: Completion function for bitkeeper?

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

Peter wrote:
 
> I don't think we *need* both, and the brace is clearer --- more to the
> point, use of the space is almost completely opaque, plus it's hard to
> search for in the documentation.  So switching the code makes sense.
> However, we might need a pointer in case people wonder about it, and
> since the documentation consists of one sentence it's not clear how much
> difference it makes to change it there (except to say it's deprecated).

Do we need to actually say it's deprecated? Can't we just remove that
part of the documentation and add a bit under the brace form about
expl. We can mention in the next release note and in a comment inside
_arguments that the feature is deprecated.

> What about a single unquoted space to indicate no matches?  Why do we
> need the space at all?  Surely if there's nothing there it indicates no
> possible matches?  It's all a bit Zen-like.

Yes, that's also pointless. Virtually nobody bothers to use it anyway.
Leaving the action empty is what most people have done (though varying
on whether to include the trailing colon). So we can get rid of that
from the documentation too.

I'll come up with a patch this weekend. Including finding all
the places we've used the initial space in existing functions.

Oliver