Re: [PATCH 07/12] completion: simplify command stuff

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 12, 2012, 23:08 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3hAaVr2duNgPTg5VD0MmS9EJGVA2kNGrm_5ZshSBu+ew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s0avJZDZjUUK3TaMDtxRJ2xXo-bELAqDB_gW1cE+LMP9g@mail.gmail.com>

2012/4/12 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:

Show 23 quoted lines

> 2012/4/12 SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:21:17AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> 2012/4/12 SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de>:
>>> > However, this change "promotes" the command (or cmd) variable from
>>> > being just a variable in _git() to a variable that is used in other
>>> > completion functions, too.  Why not go one more step further, and
>>> > denote this by adding a __git prefix (i.e. renaming the variable to
>>> > __git_command)?
>>>
>>> After thinking more about it, and analyzing the next patches, I don't
>>> think it makes sense to have such a variable; it's only used by
>>> __git_complete_remote_or_refspec, and it would be easier to make it an
>>> argument to that function; that would simplify this patch series a
>>> lot.
>>
>> You mean that _git_fetch() would call
>>
>>  __git_complete_remote_or_refspec "fetch"
>>
>> while _git_pull() and _git_push() will pass "pull" and "push",
>> respectively?
>
> Yeap. Then there would not be any need for the foo_wrap () stuff.

Actually, there would be, we need to call _git_fetch(), but if we have generic wrap function we don't know that; all we have is the alias (e.g. gf from 'git fetch'). I guess we could do something like 'eval $(alias gf)' and find out the right function to call, but that already has an 'eval' there, I'm not sure it's worth it.

Any ideas?

-- 
Felipe Contreras