🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Nov7.193122.23496@nuchat.sccsi.com> orion@nuchat.sccsi.com (Roland Dunkerley) writes:

   mike haertel writes
   >
   >Brian Fox would probably tell you that the long options will be useful
   >someday for shell completion of program options.

   This would be nice from a use standpoint, but would be inelegant if it
							  ---------
   were built in to the shell at compile time.  Maybe this is in fact the
   wrong newsgroup for this point in particular, but I've just had an
   idea in this area.  Maybe programs could either come with an
   auxilliary file or have a string compiled in (kind of like the SCCS
   strings for what) that would specify option syntax for the shell to
   use in doing completion.  Which would be better?  I can think of
   points in favor of either approach.  Having a seperate file would be
   more efficient in some cases, or maybe even have the option syntax be
   'compiled' in to a gdbm file at installation time.  That would win for
   efficiency, one would think...

that's the main characterist of BASH.

--
quanstro@stolaf.edu (goon@uni-paderborn.de)
Erik Quanstrom		 
St. Olaf College	 
Northfield MN, 55057.5 USA