Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> But even with no other reason for it, the patch stands on its own.
>
>> > +run_func ()
>> > +{
>> > + local -a COMPREPLY &&
>
> This is the line that was smuggled in. It should be part of a separate
> patch, since this is behavior change.
> ...
> Do you want me to add: "In two places we generate an output that
> didn't exist before, but nothing ever reads it." ?
That would be very friendly to readers who may later wonder why the
change was made, yes.
In any case, I am not a shell-completion person, so even if I said
"yes that would make the patch perfect", that would not count as
much ;-)
