🚀 go-pugleaf

Some time ago, during a discussion on what the switches to the `type'
command should be, Brian wrote something like:
  I don't know why you're complaining that these switches are too long.
  You should be complaining that you cannot do completion on them.
(sorry, I've junked the message containing the exact quote; from
memory, this was the general idea though).

I awaited some reaction to this, before commenting myself, but none
forthcame.  Was it just a throwaway line or do you really have plans
in this direction?  Something like VMS's (horror!) command description
language so the shell can know about what sort of arguments each
command expects and can do completion (and globbing!) appropriately?
Such a thought has brought groans of derision from nearly every un*x
hacker I've spoken to, yet I've never heard a good argument against
it.

Is there anything in the back (or the front!) of your mind(s)(*) in this
direction?

(*) BTW, is bash entirely bfox's baby, or do others (rms?) have
continuing major input?

-rgn
--
Ray Nickson, Dept. Comp. Sci., Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
nickson@comp.vuw.ac.nz       ...!uunet!vuwcomp!nickson      + 64 4 721000x8593