Re: _values again and new _ifconfig

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@berkom.de>]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:

> ...
> 
> _ifconfig shows up another limitation of _values. If values are
> separated from their arguments by a space (unquoted), it'll go on
> completing more values instead of the previous value's arguments.
> 
> What I think is that -S ' ', should mean that the separator is a quoted
> space and that with -w, the default for -S should not be '=' but also
> separate words. [...]

Good idea.  No patch for this, though, because it would require quite
a bit of coding -- so much that I'm actually reluctant to try it at
all.  Think about the need to be able to find out which word is a name
and which is a value, think about optional values -- that would almost
require a re-implementation of the C-core of _arguments.  Urgh.

It may actually be easier to leave _values for handling only things
expressable in a single word and changing _arguments to handle
`options' without leading `-'s or `+'s.

Or rewrite both of them, based on a bit of common code.  Some parsing
front ends (one for multiple words, one for a single word) producing
the same internal format which is then used by a common back end.  Hm.

> I also noticed a few cases where the description had been forgotten
> from an _values call. I also think it might be better to ditch that
> argument to _values and require _description to be used.

I made that because that description isn't always needed (not when one
of the actions is used) and I wanted to avoid superfluous calls to
_description.


Bye
  Sven

-- 
Sven Wischnowsky                           wischnow@berkom.de