On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> # __gitcomp_1 requires 2 arguments
>>> __gitcomp_1 ()
>>> {
>>> - local c IFS=' '$'\t'$'\n'
>>> + local c s IFS=' '$'\t'$'\n'
>>> for c in $1; do
>>> case "$c$2" in
>>> - --*=*) printf %s$'\n' "$c$2" ;;
>>> - *.) printf %s$'\n' "$c$2" ;;
>>> - *) printf %s$'\n' "$c$2 " ;;
>>> + --*=* | *.) s="" ;;
>>> + *) s=" " ;;
>>> esac
>>> + echo "$c$2$s"
>>> done
>>> }
>>
>> Sorry for not noticing earlier, but...
>>
>> I did a double take at the change to 'echo'. I'm guessing from the
>> patch that $c$2$s is never just '-e' or some other option taken by the
>> bash version[1] of echo. But can you be sure? Do you know off hand
>> whether '-nbogus' complains, treats the -n as usual and prints 'bogus',
>> or echoes '-nbogus'[2]? Are you sure future bash versions won't break
>> this?
>
> That doesn't make any sense to me. If you want that, you should do
> 'eval "echo $foo"', and even if you do 'eval "echo \"$foo\""', that
> would be avoided.
Actually, after a private discussion with Thomas, I realized that's on
zsh, on bash it doesn't work as I expected, plus, in both 'echo "-n"'
does the unexpected thing (to me).
So, it should be, maybe 'print "%s\n" "$c$2$s"', or 'print "%s$s\n" "$c$2"'.
However, I would like to simplify it even more:
__gitcomp_1 ()
{
local c w s IFS=' '$'\t'$'\n'
for c in $1; do
w="$c$2"
case "$w" in
--*=*|*.) s="" ;;
*) s=" " ;;
esac
printf "%s$s\n" "$w"
done
}
--
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html