Re: [PATCH v2] completion: add new git_complete helper

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 17, 2012, 20:53 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s0w40ViecQsF8AeQLLxAEShC54TTyvcPVMabpOZ+DYDqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v4nsins1j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>> ...
>>>>> And foo_wrap() should also fit into those namespaces.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I don't have a problem with that, just forgot about it.
>>>>
>>>> But git_complete I think is different.
>>>
>>> Is git_complete something the user types interactively, or is it meant to
>>> be used in their .bashrc to help them complete arguments to their custom
>>> scripts that take arguments similar to Git Porcelains?
>>
>> It's meant for their .bashrc, but can be used interactively, exactly
>> like 'complete'. You can type 'complete -o bashdefault -o default -o
>> nospace -F _git git' in the command like, but that would rarely
>> happen.
>
> OK, then I do not think "as a public interface it looks somewhat ugly"
> (which I happen to think, and I am guessing that you agree with) matters.
> It looks to me that it would be sane to follow the convention

But that convention is for *private* functions.

> to avoid
> accidental name clashes with userspace names by naming it "__git_complete"
> in that case.

What if there are no clashes?

Are you saying that even if there are no real clashes, only hypothetical ones, you would still prefer __git_complete?

How are people going to distinguish between public and private functions?

-- 
Felipe Contreras