Re: PATCH: Re: sudo completion problem

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

Zefram wrote:

> ...
> 
> If we can determine that a particular command is processing options in
> this way, it would be nice to complet options accordingly.  However,
> by default options should only be completed before the first non-option
> argument.  In either case, options should never be completed after a "--".

I don't buy this. There *may* be commands or shell functions which
take `--' to, e.g.,  separate different sets of options and arguments.

_arguments is intended to be general enough to generate sensible
completions even for user-written shell functions, after all.

Please lets not make _arguments treat any string from the line special 
like this. Lets add it to:

> I envision _arguments first of all deciding whether the command allows
> options everywhere or not.  This should be under the control of the
> caller, via options to _arguments; possible values are "everywhere",
> "only before first argument", "autodetect GNU getopt" (if possible).

So wo would have these plus these combined with `and no options after --'.

Ok?

> _arguments must also check for a "--" argument, and not do option
> completion (regardless of option style) if the cursor is after the "--".
> All of this then lets it decide whether to complete options or not;
> non-option arguments are always a possibility, though we might want to
> be clever about handling arguments that start with "-".

No patch yet, but adding an option to comparguments (the builtin) for
the second (i.e. "only before first argument" the first would still be
the default, _arguments could use a different default, I don't care
that much about it for now) should be easy. And another option for the 
"no options after `--'" would be easy, too.

But before I start writing it: should the default for _arguments be
changed? And would someone be willing to check all uses of _arguments
and add the option to the calls that need them? Oh, and does anyone
have an idea how to test for GNU-getopts. Reliably?

Bye
 Sven


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