On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:33 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> It _might_ feel as bit less weird if it was presented as --no-<option>
> or --no-{...} or --no-<...> or --no-... or something, but those seem
> pretty weird too, so perhaps not. Anyhow, it's not a major issue; the
> --[no-]foo idea seems pretty intuitive, but if it can't be easily
> implemented, then falling back to your --no- idea makes sense.Oh good I was thinking --no-... too or we could even do "--no- (press tab for more)" or something to make it more obvious. As long as we make sure there's another --no-option somewhere, then we will only complete the --no- part and can replace the "..." (or "press tab for more") with real candidates in the next tab/ -- Duy
