Re: PATCH: _a2ps completion

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

Akim Demaille wrote:

> Hi People, I'm the author of a2ps (*Any* to PostScript, not ASCII),
> and I'm the one who complained to Clint.  Please, keep me in CC, I'm
> not member of the list.
> 
> | Clint Adams wrote:
> |      
> | > I have been informed that a2ps can be just as useful on PostScript
> | > files as any other file, and that *.(#i)(ps|eps) should not be
> | > excluded from completion.  Perhaps a context-based switch would
> | > be more appropriate.
> | > ...
> | > -_arguments '*:text file:_files -g \*\~\*.\(\#i\)\(ps\|eps\)' -- \
> | > +_arguments '*:input file:_files' -- \
> |      
> | I'm against this change. Very much so. At least in this form.
> 
> I'm very much in favor of this.

Ok, I wasn't aware of the possibilities of *newer versions* of GNU
a2ps. So I change my statement to: I'm very much against completing
all files unconditionally. We should do that only if the a2ps is a
newer GNU version that supports automatic conversion and whatnot. Ok?

My a2ps (4.10.1) at least produces only pages containing the
PostScript code for PostScript files. And since only few people will
probably want that, I still think PostScript files shouldn't be
completed for such a version by default.

But I'd like to hear other people's opinion, since, of course, I can
easily add the ignored-patterns stuff to my setup if everyone else
thinks that the default should be changed.


Bye
 Sven


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