Re: [PATCH 4/5] git-completion.bash: consolidate cases in _git_stash()

> 
> On Tue, Apr 20 2021, Denton Liu wrote:
> 
> > The $subcommand case statement in _git_stash() is quite repetitive.
> > Consolidate the cases together into one catch-all case to reduce the
> > repetition.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  contrib/completion/git-completion.bash | 21 ++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
> > index 30c9a97616..7bce9a0112 100644
> > --- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
> > +++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
> > @@ -3032,21 +3032,6 @@ _git_stash ()
> >  	fi
> >  
> >  	case "$subcommand,$cur" in
> > -	push,--*)
> > -		__gitcomp_builtin stash_push
> > -		;;
> > -	save,--*)
> > -		__gitcomp_builtin stash_save
> > -		;;
> > -	pop,--*)
> > -		__gitcomp_builtin stash_pop
> > -		;;
> > -	apply,--*)
> > -		__gitcomp_builtin stash_apply
> > -		;;
> > -	drop,--*)
> > -		__gitcomp_builtin stash_drop
> > -		;;
> >  	list,--*)
> >  		# NEEDSWORK: can we somehow unify this with the options in _git_log() and _git_show()
> >  		__gitcomp_builtin stash_list "$__git_log_common_options $__git_diff_common_options"
> > @@ -3054,8 +3039,8 @@ _git_stash ()
> >  	show,--*)
> >  		__gitcomp_builtin stash_show "$__git_diff_common_options"
> >  		;;
> > -	branch,--*)
> > -		__gitcomp_builtin stash_branch
> > +	*,--*)
> > +		__gitcomp_builtin "stash_$subcommand"
> >  		;;
> >  	branch,*)
> >  		if [ $cword -eq $((__git_cmd_idx+2)) ]; then
> > @@ -3069,8 +3054,6 @@ _git_stash ()
> >  		__gitcomp_nl "$(__git stash list \
> >  				| sed -n -e 's/:.*//p')"
> >  		;;
> > -	*)
> > -		;;
> >  	esac
> >  }
> 
> One might think that this introduces a logic error in "git stash
> doesnotexist" now dispatching to a non-existing "stash_doesnotexist" or
> something, bu tI see that earlier (omitted from context) in the function
> there's an exhaustive lit of push/save/pop etc. which guards against
> this, is is that correct?