Re: Test failures in artih and arguments

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@berkom.de>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> ...
> 
> The problem really is that `-<something>' is a valid match, for any
> arbitrary value of <something>, but of course we can only write code to
> add or list matches that we know about in advance, not those that can be
> fabricated interactively.
> 
> So it seems to me that we need a wildcard indicator of some kind, so
> that _arguments can add the match `-<wild>'.  This would allow the `-'
> to be treated as a prefix of the two matches `-x' and `-<wild>'.  The
> list and menu code would then have to special case any match that has
> <wild> in it, omitting it from listings but displaying the description
> for it (if there is one).
> 
> However, I don't have any good suggestions on how to chose <wild> such
> that it is guaranteed not to conflict with any possible real match.

Good analysis. An dnow I'm back at thinking: do we really want that?

It would mean that in cases like `_argument -longoption :foo:' that
long option names (or, more likely, those long option names) couldn't
be completed. Very ugly, if you ask me.

If we don't want to be able to complete the options, we would just
have to add `$PREFIX' or some such as a possible match.

Sometimes I think that in such cases we should only force the message
to be displayed, even if a match was accepted. And this is also
affected by the fake style thing we are discussing (which might turn a
case of `displaying a message' into `adding some matches').


Bye
  Sven

-- 
Sven Wischnowsky                           wischnow@berkom.de