Re: Autoload vs regular function

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 09/18/2015 10:15 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sep 18,  8:34am, Sebastian Gniazdowski wrote:
> }
> } are there any pitfalls about functions declared in this way instead of
> } using autoload and separate files? Is this enough to have plugin for
> } e.g. antigen?
>
> There aren't any pitfalls to this, except that the file has to be
> sourced (i.e., all the functions fully defined in shell memory) unless
> there is a single entry-point function whose name can be the same as
> the basename of the file, and thereby trigger loading the whole thing.
>
> E.g. the _git file that handles completion for all the git subcommands
> has a whole slew of helper functions, none of which are loaded until
> an attempt to complete for "git" is done, at which time the _git entry
> point function loads all of them.
Can you rough in an example of that for us Bart?  Sounds like an elegant 
idea.  I wonder
if it is possible that when one types a command that is not found, it 
could trigger
a sort of search in some directory for a script that would itself source 
the very command
not found and then run it?  Sorta a reinvention of autoload but maybe more
transparent.

>