Re: a couple of completion questions

Re: a couple of completion questions

[Sven Wischnowsky]

Clint Adams wrote:

> Included at the bottom of this message is my current working copy of _dpkg.
> 
> Firstly, is there a simple way to change the _arguments for
> remove|purge|status|listfiles in the state switch to use -A
> without factoring out each case and adding the appropriate
> options?

Sorry, I don't understand... what do you want to do?

> My second question has now been invalidated, so I'll substitute
> these two thoughts: it would be nice if -iR engaged the state engine
> in the same way -i -R or -R -i does;

If I understand you correctly here, than that's what we are discussing 
currently in that rpm-thread. I hope to be able to work on this soon.

> and also, the call to _arguments
> used in the state switch for install/record_avail does not behave
> as described in zshcompsys(1), though I'm taking advantage of that.

I know nothing about dpkg and friends. In which way does it behave
differently from what's documented and how do you make use of it
(i.e.: is there something wrong? or only documented in the wrong way?
or should have both what it's doing and what's documented?)?

Bye
 Sven


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

"antecedents" [was Re: a couple of completion questions]

[Clint Adams]

> Sorry, I don't understand... what do you want to do?

Okay.  I want to use _arguments -A in the state switch at the bottom.
Originally, install and record_avail were the same case, but when I
added -A, they wouldn't complete, so I had to insert the options
that had gotten the user to that state, which is why install and
record_avail are two separate cases now.

I want to avoid making remove, purge, status, and listfiles
four separate cases, yet still retain the -A to _arguments.
My last resort would probably be to define four new arrays with
the short and long options and then use something like
${(P)${:-_dpkg_actions_${state}}}, but I was hoping that there
was a better way.
 

_argument sets [was Re: a couple of completion questions]

[Clint Adams]

> I know nothing about dpkg and friends. In which way does it behave
> differently from what's documented and how do you make use of it
> (i.e.: is there something wrong? or only documented in the wrong way?
> or should have both what it's doing and what's documented?)?

Okay, first off, this is what I want.  <arg> is meant to be
-i, -A, or the long-option equivalents.

dpkg <arg> <TAB> right now completes _files -g \*.deb by default.
If I remove the -A to _arguments, it will complete $_dpkg_options.
Ideally, it should complete _files -g \*.deb, $_dpkg_options,
and $_dpkg_options_recursive, unless one of $_dpkg_options_recursive
is present, in which case it should complete directories instead of
\*.deb.  BTW, I swapped the positions of -C and -A to _arguments.

It does this, except for completing $_dpkg_options or
$_dpkg_options_recursive.  Or rather, it will for

dpkg --install --<TAB>
dpkg --install -<TAB>
dpkg --install -O<TAB>

but it won't complete for

dpkg --install --a<TAB>

So if I type dpkg --install --<TAB> I get --abort-after,
but if I type --a<TAB>, I get corrections.

Re: "antecedents" [was Re: a couple of completion questions]

[Clint Adams]

> Hm, should we add an option, to be combined with -A (or an argument to 
> -A?) to tell it that it should consider words starting with [-+] to be 
> arguments? Or, probably better, let -A take an argument, a pattern and 
> all words matching it are not taken to be arguments and hence don't
> keep it from completing option.

I like the pattern idea a lot.

Re: "antecedents" [was Re: a couple of completion questions]

[Sven Wischnowsky]

Clint Adams wrote:

> > Sorry, I don't understand... what do you want to do?
> 
> Okay.  I want to use _arguments -A in the state switch at the bottom.
> Originally, install and record_avail were the same case, but when I
> added -A, they wouldn't complete, so I had to insert the options
> that had gotten the user to that state, which is why install and
> record_avail are two separate cases now.
> 
> I want to avoid making remove, purge, status, and listfiles
> four separate cases, yet still retain the -A to _arguments.
> My last resort would probably be to define four new arrays with
> the short and long options and then use something like
> ${(P)${:-_dpkg_actions_${state}}}, but I was hoping that there
> was a better way.

Aha. Well, if it finds a string not described by one of the
option-specs it has to take it to be an argument.

Hm, should we add an option, to be combined with -A (or an argument to 
-A?) to tell it that it should consider words starting with [-+] to be 
arguments? Or, probably better, let -A take an argument, a pattern and 
all words matching it are not taken to be arguments and hence don't
keep it from completing option.


Bye
 Sven


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