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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 17, 2012, 07:56 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3mnnhKXHUEMSX+d2L2Jyqr9_Q7F=3DvWb4MKxHpTRREg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120417073653.GB20017@burratino>

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> You are the one who brought the argument that even public functions
>> have the '_' prefix, so it's *your* responsibility to substantiate
>> that argument.
>
> No, honestly it isn't my responsibility to waste time arguing with
> you.  What kind of crazy world would work that way?
>
> And I did not mean to bring up any argument.  I only meant to bring up
> the _datum_ that, at least in the context of the bash_completion
> project, that is the current convention.  And then you started trying
> to tell me that I had the facts wrong!  You might even be right, but
> you haven't shown any sign of trying to check that, by, say, asking
> someone from the bash_completion project what convention they use.

I don't understand. I'm proposing the name 'git_complete', I thought you were arguing against it. If you were only providing random facts, then we can just ignore them, and it would be OK, right? But I'm pretty sure you would be angry as well if I just ignored that fact.

Sure, it would be nice to follow bash_completion project's convention for these kinds of functions, if they had any, and might be useful to ask them what they think. But we don't *have* to. And nobody is arguing that we should ask them. Right? Or are you?

> I'm sick of this.  Call it whatever you want.  I don't know why you
> think this is productive.

We don't have to agree on any name right now. I believe it's worth waiting before deciding on a name for a public function like this, and try to get some consensus.

But throwing arguments on the air, and they get angry when they get counter-argued is not helpful. If we are going to discuss, lets discuss, but that doesn't seem to be what you want. You want me to blindly use the name you propose without saying a word? Blindly accept your argument... follow orders?

I took your argument seriously and looked for evidence myself, and in the absence of evidence I'm still not throwing it away, I'm assuming it has merit and added code to make sure we don't override some user function that has the same name. That would solve the problem you raised, and it would help us find out if this is indeed a real issue, or a theoretical one, and at the same time making sure people don't rely too much on this function for the moment.

I believe this is very scientific-like; you make a hypothesis, we make an experiment, and then we can find out the results, and only then make a decision.

I don't know what else I can do to move this forward.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras