Re: PATCH: Completion/Cvs/

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de>]

Tanaka Akira wrote:

> > In this example I think I would like to have it complete `vi' if the
> > cursor is directly after the `-e' (same word), because the `*::...'
> > should only take affect on whole words, i.e. in this case the word
> > after the `-e...'.
> 
> Why? Since a first non-option argument is the `a', I think the
> `*::...' should take affect the `-e...' after the `a'.
> 
> I want to stop completion by _arguments until first non-option
> argument --- the `a'. So In the example, I want the behaviour that
> there should be no completion after the `a'.
 
Ahem. Sorry, I simply overlooked the `a' in your previous mail. You
are right.

> > With that, this is just a special case of a more general problem with
> > completion after a `-e+:...' option. Currently we use the description
> > for the first option-argument to complete the next word after the `-e' 
> > only if there really is nothing after the `-e' in the same word (so
> > that `foo -e <TAB>' completes the option-argument and `foo -ebar <TAB>'
> > completes normal arguments). But what if the empty string is a valid
> > option-argument? I think `-e+::...' should give us that (that's what
> > the patch below does).
> 
> I think this is another issue.
> 
> Even if the empty string is a valid option-argument, getopt does not
> take the option-argument from the same word because getopt never
> knows it. In general, it is impossible to parse command line with the
> rule that enable the empty string option-argument just after (without
> white space) the option-argument word. So I think it is useless.

The patch was mostly cosmetic, in fact. The question is: will users
think that `-e+::..' does what they want in this case or not?
Personally I don't care much if the patch is included or, since I
would use `-e-:..' in such cases.

Bye
 Sven

diff -u oc/Base/_arguments Completion/Base/_arguments
--- oc/Base/_arguments	Wed Sep  1 13:02:10 1999
+++ Completion/Base/_arguments	Wed Sep  1 13:02:36 1999
@@ -525,6 +525,8 @@
   # We either don't have a description for an argument of an option
   # or we have a description for a optional argument.
 
+  opt=yes
+
   if [[ -z "$def" ]]; then
 
     # If we have none at all, use the one for this argument position.
@@ -535,6 +537,7 @@
       optbeg="$nargbeg"
       argbeg="$nargbeg"
       fromrest=yes
+      [[ "$def" = \*::* ]] && opt=''
     fi
   fi
 
@@ -542,8 +545,7 @@
   # be in a string that starts with an option name and continues with
   # the first argument, test that (again, two loops).
 
-  opt=yes
-  if (( $#dopts )); then
+  if [[ -n "$opt" && $#dopts -ne 0 ]]; then
 
     # Get the option names.
 

--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de