On 09:07 Mon 23 Apr , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:21:46AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 08:03 Mon 23 Apr , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > BAREBOX_CMD_START(sleep)
> > > > .cmd = do_sleep,
> > > > .usage = "delay execution for n seconds",
> > > > + BAREBOX_CMD_COMPLETE(cammand_var_complete)
> > > > BAREBOX_CMD_END
> > > > diff --git a/common/complete.c b/common/complete.c
> > > > index 5213b10..9ecce25 100644
> > > > --- a/common/complete.c
> > > > +++ b/common/complete.c
> > > > @@ -193,6 +193,11 @@ int empty_complete(struct string_list *sl, char *instr)
> > > > return 1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +int cammand_var_complete(struct string_list *sl, char *instr)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Two patches before this one you introduced empty_complete. This function
> > > does the same, except that it returns 0 instead of 1. The return value
> > > of the complete functions is never checked, so what is going on here?
> >
> > the return value is checked.
> >
> > no this different we return 0 as you can use env var complete
>
> Can you then add a meaningful comment what command cmdtp->complete
> should return and what it means? A define instead of using '1' may make
> sense aswell.
ok will ad any other comment?
Best Regards,
J.
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
