On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:00:57 +0300 Ville Skyttä <ville.sky...@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 04:03 AM, Igor Murzov wrote: > > And maybe it > > is a good idea to put functions used by more than one completion to its > > own file. > > No objections, but on the other hand no hurry either as far as I'm > concerned. Maybe introduce a "functions" dir where these files would be > placed, and a loader function similar to the current _xfunc? We could > also start moving functions from bash_completion there to make it > slimmer. But I suppose this would cause some backwards compatibility > issues. Is backward compatibility necessary? I suppose that if we raise major version number, then we can drop this compatibility and remove all deprecated functions :) This will make bash_completion slimmer. Also I don't think that we should sacrifice readability of the code for some small performance gains. Having two or three small completions in one file is fine for me. Dynamic loading already made completing fast enough. So creating a "functions" directory is ok, but I should warn about using it too often. It is better to merge common function and completions in a one script -- I'm sure this will not hurt the performance. For example, I think that it's fine to merge completions/insmod, completions/rmmod and _modules(), _installed_modules() into single completions/module-init-tools file. Also it's not that useful to split all ssh related stuff. For example completions/sshfs still needs to load completion/ssh to work. -- Igor _______________________________________________ Bash-completion-devel mailing list Bash-completion-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bash-completion-devel
