From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:39:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] completion: complete all possible -no-<options>
Message-ID: <CACsJy8C+-f61H_kyUGspFh2z1q1fb0ug=p9e0tmCJC-ovC9ryA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRUD7FnJqSZ=hkz0GAgOROiY+gvHKRjKVfkKtqDZyt5mA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:33 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> It _might_ feel as bit less weird if it was presented as --no-<option>
> or --no-{...} or --no-<...> or --no-... or something, but those seem
> pretty weird too, so perhaps not. Anyhow, it's not a major issue; the
> --[no-]foo idea seems pretty intuitive, but if it can't be easily
> implemented, then falling back to your --no- idea makes sense.

Oh good I was thinking --no-... too or we could even do "--no- (press
tab for more)" or something to make it more obvious. As long as we
make sure there's another --no-option somewhere, then we will only
complete the --no- part and can replace the "..." (or "press tab for
more") with real candidates in the next tab/
--
Duy