[Bash-completion-devel] Namespace prefix?

David Paleino dapal at debian.org
Sun Apr 25 13:03:56 UTC 2010


On Sunday 25 April 2010 12:18:26, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/BashCompletion/Proposals/Roadmap
> 
> We have an item on the roadmap for introducing a "namespace prefix" for all
> bash-completion functions.  I suggest we decide whether and how to do it
>  soon as I'd like to get closer to a new release; there have been lots of
>  improvements since 1.1.

I agree, I've had people asking for a 1.2, and I always replied them "sorry, 
it would be quite a lot of work, since 2.0 is a lot different".

> So, what are the candidates?  I think at least:
> 
> 1) Do not introduce a new prefix, leave things as is (keep using the
> underscore).
> 2) comp_* (with or without leading underscore)
> 3) bc_* (with or without leading underscore)
> 4) bashcomp_* (with or without leading underscore)
> 5) Others?

I'd vote for one of bc_* or bashcomp_*. Maybe bashcomp_*, since it's clearer.
IMHO comp_* is too weak (just case-difference from COMP_*).

David

-- 
 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|----
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/bash-completion-devel/attachments/20100425/3c66b53b/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Bash-completion-devel mailing list