Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:41:45 + Ralph Corderoy wrote: Ralph Corderoy writes: > > Separate to completion, there's the issue of a non-nmh program being > able to accept all of an nmh's program's options and add some of its > own, hopefully without clashing. Whether an

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

Hi Ken, > Bakul wrote: > > May be the current -help option of most commands with some post > > processing is good enough? > > I have thought about that ... but AFAIK we have never committed that > the "help" output be stable. Really, I think a few extra switches > would make it a lot easier AND

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

>May be the current -help option of most commands with some post >processing is good enough? I have thought about that ... but AFAIK we have never committed that the "help" output be stable. Really, I think a few extra switches would make it a lot easier AND we could commit to long-term

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

May be the current -help option of most commands with some post processing is good enough? Under zsh on FreeBSD I use, for example, compctl -K listifnets ifconfig listifnets() { set -A reply $(ifconfig -l) } Now whenever I try autocompleting ifconfig’s argument, zsh runs the listifnets

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

Hi Paul, I've made a note of your and Ken's suggestions. > http://blog.llvm.org/2017/09/clang-bash-better-auto-completion-is.html Having every program, clang, nmh, vim, etc., implement --autocomplete seems a poor solution. The bash script they provide has knowledge of some of clang's options

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

>if we're doing global search/destroy on nmh command line processing, >please consider: > >http://blog.llvm.org/2017/09/clang-bash-better-auto-completion-is.html Oh, nice! That looks pretty easy, actually. Well, parameters might be a bit tough, but we could at least do switches. --Ken --

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

if we're doing global search/destroy on nmh command line processing, please consider: http://blog.llvm.org/2017/09/clang-bash-better-auto-completion-is.html -- Nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

>> Agreed, this needs a good cleaning. > >I'd like to see a lot of the noddy `-foo sets bool foo, -nofoo clears >it'-case processing in a switch disappear into a central, new, >option-processing routine. FWIW, I'm fine with that. But ... as long as we're making a list of things that we should

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

Hi David, > Agreed, this needs a good cleaning. I'd like to see a lot of the noddy `-foo sets bool foo, -nofoo clears it'-case processing in a switch disappear into a central, new, option-processing routine. > > $ post '-sasl -user' -foobar > > seen -sasl > > post: -foobar unknown >

Re: [Nmh-workers] switches and smatch

Ralph wrote: > it's a general nmh-wide issue. Agreed, this needs a good cleaning. > One last `Huh?'. > > $ post '-sasl -user' -foobar > seen -sasl > post: -foobar unknown > $ > > There's no `seen: -user' because smatch() was only called once with > "-sasl -user" and said it