Re: [Bash-completion-devel] RFC: Better long option with argument completion

2009-04-14 Thread Ville Skyttä
On Monday 13 April 2009, Ville Skyttä wrote: On Monday 13 April 2009, David Paleino wrote: As soon as you'll commit the patch (if there are no other objections), I'll start fixing completions too. :) Ok, will wait until tomorrow to see if there are other opinions. Committed, will proceed

[Bash-completion-devel] RFC: Better long option with argument completion

2009-04-13 Thread Ville Skyttä
Hello, Currently completion of long options that take arguments is pretty bad. For an example, many completions list things like --foo= in their compgen -W strings which end up completed as --foo\= which is annoying, especially the trailing space. Some completions use internal workarounds

Re: [Bash-completion-devel] RFC: Better long option with argument completion

2009-04-13 Thread David Paleino
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:23:09 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: Hello, Hello Ville, Currently completion of long options that take arguments is pretty bad. Yes, definitely. For an example, many completions list things like --foo= in their compgen -W strings which end up completed as --foo\=

Re: [Bash-completion-devel] RFC: Better long option with argument completion

2009-04-13 Thread Ville Skyttä
On Monday 13 April 2009, David Paleino wrote: On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:23:09 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: The patch looks good to me, just one *curiosity* (i.e. only curiosity, nothing to fix :P): why are you quoting + prev=${cur%%?(\\)=*} + cur=${cur#*=} ? No