Re: Completion function for bitkeeper?

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

Bart wrote:

> } > Word splitting is vastly different in the two cases.  It happens within
> } > the words of $action in the second case, but does not in the first case.
> 
> That's a bit incoherent, let me try again.

That makes more sense now. Not sure I'd describe it as "vastly
different". It would only affect fairly unusual cases.

> In this second case it's a syntax error.  I suppose it could be argued
> that the second case is unnecessary because it's only a shorthand for
> the first case with only one command in the braces.

Do you really think it's worth keeping both syntaxes though given that
it'd be nice to simplify _arguments syntax a little. I'd still be
inclined to deprecate the initial space form but I'm really not so
fussed. 

> Also in the second case the eval has been factored out of the loop
> because we're always interested in the entire value of "$action" and
> it's fractionally more efficient to do the "eval" once only.

Though it is fairly rare for label loops to run more than once.
 
Oliver