On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Linda A. Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote: > Ville Skyttä wrote:-- >> >> >> BTW that's not what the have() function looks like in recent >> bash-completion. I suppose you're using an old version. >> >> >> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/bash-completion/bash-completion.git/tree/bash_completion#n125 > ---- > Thanks for the update -- but wouldn't that make this performance > issue worse?
No, because the time taken by have() within bash-completion is already 0, and we want to don't want to encourage anyone to use it any more by making it faster, we want it to go away. And while it's there, we do want to share code in have() and _have() (and the latter still does have a purpose). But seriously, in case it was not clear already, I am personally not going to make the suggested changes. And I have a hunch that something's probably not right in your bash-completion 2.1 setup -- have() shouldn't be that much of a performance issue unless you have lots of 3rd party completions that use it (which I respectfully doubt) and the function definition you posted isn't like that in 2.1... _______________________________________________ Bash-completion-devel mailing list Bash-completion-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bash-completion-devel
