From: Shawn O. Pearce Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:17:43 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] bash: support user-supplied completion scripts for user's git commands Message-ID: <20100226201743.GB24776@spearce.org> In-Reply-To: <7vmxyvsqzn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... BTW, Mercurial's > > completion script uses _hg_cmd_foo() for hg commands and > > _hg_ext_bar() for extensions, so we might as well be a bit consistent, > > and call our completion functions _git_cmd_foo(). > > In Hg's context it might make sense to name a function _hg_cmd_foo vs > _hg_ext_bar iff the end users need to be very aware of the distinction > between commands and extensions, but for us I think "git_cmd_foo" is > probably the most meaningless rename, as it doesn't add any extra > information (we know 'git foo' is a command already without 'cmd'). I agree. _git_cmd_foo is pointless. But I would be ok with _git_completion_foo for the completion function of git foo. As Junio pointed out, better to do it now before users start to really build their own extension library on top of the package. -- Shawn.