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 thi
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Linda A. Walsh 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_comp
Ville Skyttä wrote:
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 d
