Re: PATCH: Re: Backticks and other tricks

["Oliver Kiddle" <okiddle@yahoo.co.uk>]

--- Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote: > 

> Anyway, what I really wanted to say (and that's why it's on
> -workers): 
> if you try this with a `&& return 0' after the `_arguments ...'
> you'll 
> notice that competion after, e.g. `-ef1:' yields nothing.  That's a
> result of the change that removed the 300-return-value -- it has
> added 
> the option itself and hence `_arguments' returns zero.  Ugly.  Very.

I agree that it is a pity this can't be done anymore when you have
state ->actions but I don't think it is as ugly as using
compstate[nmatches] would be. We just have to use `&& ret=0' or similar
and rely on checking of $state. The only other thing I can think of is
modifying _main_complete to use compstate[nmatches] when deciding
whether to move on to the next completer and allowing completion
functions for commands to not bother about their return code. I'm not
sure I like that though.

> So for now let's use the patch below.  It adds the options only if
> there is no `->state' action to use or if we are not in the same word
> after the option.

I don't really understand this but it sounds like you're not going to
be adding options in cases where they should be - options and states
can both add matches together.

Once we have this finalised, I will go through checking the return
codes of functions (and adding -A "-*" and -S options to _arguments)
but I don't have much time over the next two weeks.

Oliver

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie