From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-5851-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.auc.dk>
Received: (qmail 12382 invoked from network); 18 Mar 1999 07:10:35 -0000
Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 18 Mar 1999 07:10:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 7782 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 1999 07:10:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 5851
Received: (qmail 7706 invoked from network); 18 Mar 1999 07:10:11 -0000
X-Authentication-Warning: awayteam.zanshin.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@tiny.zanshin.com using -f
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@tiny.zanshin.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14064.42340.65376.521996@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 23:04:04 -0800 (PST)
To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk
Subject: Should _long_options be considered dangerous?
X-Mailer: VM 6.68a under Emacs 20.3.5.1
Reply-To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>

I wonder if perhaps we shouldn't add some more warning text in
Completion/Base/_long_options (and maybe even in Completion/README)
noting that you shouldn't attempt to use _long_options from _normal
or any other "default" completion function.

Some (non-GNU) commands might actually do something unpleasant when
run with an unrecognized --help option.  I can't think of an example
offhand, which is why the Subject is a question, but ...