RE: Reading completion manual

["Andrej Borsenkow" <borsenkow.msk@sni.de>]

>
> >  - use new option character (do we have one free?)
> >  - implement long options
> >  - (really wild one) implement name spaces.
> >
> > I'd like the last one, but it is probably impossible. A command name
> > may have any character, so there is simply no char that can be
> > (safely) used as delimiter. So, long options is probably the only
> > viable solution. And quite useful in other places as well.
>
> I thought namespaces had been discussed before?  What's the objection
> to allowing "." in variable names, and regarding it as a component
> delimiter in function/command names?

I spoke about functions not variables. Variables names are limited to
alphanumeric, so you can safely use ``.'' as delimiter. Function names can
be arbitrary (am I wrong?)

 Hmm, this isn't a good idea; I
> quite often use things like "cp $i $i.bak" and stuff.

If I remember correctly, it should start with a dot. And of course, you can
use braces as usual

cp ${.myvars.i} ${.myvars.i}.bak

But you are right, it can break some scripts

>
> (So if you have a function foo.WRITE, then that gets called when you
> try to write to foo.  Something like that, anyway.  A better interface
> might be to copy the Perl tie ideas---allowing special associative
> arrays and things as Bart suggested; you wouldn't need name spaces for
> this, of course.)
>

May be, simply add ZSH emulation module to Perl :-))) But yes, what you've
just described is my long cherished idea.

/andrej