On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 2012-04-16 23:59, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Hopefully this information helps clarify to what extent the leading >> underscores in functions exposed by completion scripts are meant or >> are not meant as a convention. > > We've discussed what a real "API" or "namespace" of bash-completion > would look like, but so far nothing concrete has come out of it. > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.shells.bash.completion.scm/2013/focus=3135 Thank you for pointing this out. This means I was correct; there was/is no convention for public APIs. According to that thread, the closest there is to a convention would be to name it _GIT_complete. That would certainly avoid conflicts with any current namespace, so I feel it's much better than __git_complete. Still, I don't see the point in avoiding 'git_complete' and making our lifes more difficult. Bash public functions, like *complete*, don't have any special namespace, they just snatch them, and that's the end of it. In the particular case of git, where would have only a couple (currently 2) public functions, I don't see what's the big deal. Cheers. -- 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