From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-28215-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 27896 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2010 16:44:34 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 28215
Received: (qmail 17740 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2010 16:44:30 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <100830094359.ZM7722@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:43:59 -0700
In-reply-to: <AANLkTi=y_z0MEtVGi02AqhDTR5hgi2EU-+=6UUu2kGe0@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In reply to Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se>
 "Re: [PATCH] _git: Add completion for help subcommand" (Aug 26,  9:55am)
References: <1282393263-16767-1-git-send-email-aaron@schrab.com>
	<AANLkTimOcmpFpTrrVMsuvjCR8puCnhoRVsmduci=SP8d@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LNX.2.01.1008252311460.4535@hp>
	<AANLkTi=y_z0MEtVGi02AqhDTR5hgi2EU-+=6UUu2kGe0@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] _git: Add completion for help subcommand
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Aug 26,  9:55am, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
} Subject: Re: [PATCH] _git: Add completion for help subcommand
}
} On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 05:29, Benjamin R. Haskell <zsh@benizi.com> wrote:
} > On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
} >
} >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 14:21, Aaron Schrab wrote:
} >>
} >> Seems fine except for this:
} >>
} >> > +  local formats='(--info -i --man -m --web -w)'
} >>
} >> Although this is sort of nice it doesn't follow the style of this or
} >> other completion files, so please write out the whole list in each
} >> line.
} 
} > It's just visual clutter.  Is there a particular reason not to use a
} > variable?
} 
} Perhaps. The common pattern I saw when I began writing completion
} functions was
}
} (    --b --c)--a
} (--a     --c)--b
} (--a --b    )--c
} 
} I'd really appreciate some kind of vote or input on this.  If we
} decide on using variables they should be used throughout.
}-- End of excerpt from Nikolai Weibull


Nikolai, I think you're missing the point of the abc example you quoted.

In that example, every set inside the parens is different, and the writer
of the function chose to lay them out so that it was obvious where the
differences were.

In the cases that use variables, the subset represented by the variable
is identical in every instance, so it makes sense to write out that
subset only once in the variable assignment.

E.g., both styles are consistent and they could even be mixed:

  def=(--d --e --f)
  (    --b --c $def --g)--a
  (--a     --c $def --g)--b
  (--a --b     $def --g)--c
  (--a --b --c $def    )--g

There's no reason to pick one or the other and require it everywhere.