Re: problem with _arguments exclusion lists

[Oliver Kiddle <opk@u.genie.co.uk>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> 
> > [[ -n $PREFIX$SUFFIX && "$PREFIX$SUFFIX" != $~1 ]] && return 1
> 
> If we do that, no options will be completed after, e.g. `pine -c' (with
> your patch), because then the action returned zero.

You're right. I got mixed up. I still don't like that last line in
_guard though. I think that maybe when _guard returns 0, matching
options should still be offered so a -c3nf option could be matched and
options would be offered after pine -c without that last line in _guard.
The important original point was really what happens when _guard returns
1 and that is now right.

Apart from the minor point above, I am now happy that this all works so
thanks Sven. Sorry for being slow about replying to this last e-mail

> I admit that I never thought about using this in a normal-argument spec
> (non-option-argument).  Isn't that already covered enough by the normal
> behaviour of _arguments?  I.e., using some other action for that
> argument that displays the message and handles the colon (I don't know
> how this argument has to look like...).

It can't really be handled by anything else unless there is a specific
maximum to X display numbers allowing us to add all possibilities.
_guard is actually particularly valuable in the non-option argument case
because before the recent changes options would not complete. The
problem really is that the _guard patterns have to match fully, not
partially: _vnc can be fixed by using the pattern (|:[0-9]#) which I'll
commit later if _guard stays as it is.

Oliver


_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the 
MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp