Re: PATCH: Re: _arguments questions

[Alexandre Duret-Lutz <duret_g@epita.fr>]

>>> "Sven" == Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de> writes:

 Sven> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:

[...]

 >> 1) is there a simplier way to nest `_arguments' ?

 Sven> I don't see any. Sorry. Adding more syntactic sugar to the
 Sven> _argument specs to support this doesn't seem worth it unless we put 
 Sven> it into the <action>. Then it's quite simple (making _arguments
 Sven> insert the dummy, probably using the option name for it).

Isn't the `*pattern::message' spec quite the same ? 
                                                       The `*' or
                     the  pattern  may also be separated from the
                     message by two or  three  colons.  With  two
                     colons  the words special array and the CUR­
                     RENT special parameter are modified to refer
                     only to the words after the option (with two
                     colons) 

What we want here is that `words' and `CURRENT' refer to the
words after the option, *including the option*.  
Why not a four colons separator ?

_arguments -a -b '-c:*::::blah: _arguments -c -d -e'

Horrible !

 Sven> Should we?

I would find this helpfull, since it prevent from writting intermediate
functions (and since _argument is *the* easy way to write completion
functions, it should better nest without requiring the user to dig the
completion system).

Another idea: Isn't there a way to make _arguments detect whether it has
been nested or not ?  (I don't know, maybe when the <argument> part
of the context is already set ?).  Of course this solve only the 
_arguments nesting problem, not the more general "words and CURRENT 
include the current option" behaviour.

[...]

-- 
Alexandre Duret-Lutz