Re: Bug, or someone wanna explain to me why this is a POSIX feature?

[Linda Walsh]

Davide Brini wrote:
> foo() {  # hit enter here
> > # hit tab here
> Display all 112 possibilities? (y or n)
>
> The latter only attemps completion from names in the current directory.
---
        Right.   That was my issue.

My understanding is it shouldn't try to perform completion on an empty
line.  Period.

Consider at the command line:
> <tab>
it doesn't display the local filenames

(assuming no_command_completion is set)...


The POSIX reference was to a previous note I posted ... were I wanted to
know why
return -1 threw an error, but you could work around it with
(exit -1);return;  People cited posix, but I asked for return to be 
consistent with 'exit',
as exit (as it currently functions) is consistent with most other 
languages (i.e. they
define the value as a short int, but it is still truncated to 8-bits).
Having exit & return in bash behave similarly to other langs can only 
help in shell programming.

If 'posix-only', (or whtaever the option is) is set, then probably both 
(exit and return)
should 'throw' errors -- 'value out of range' (not invalid option

Anyway...command completion!...uh....shouldn't be trying to complete
things from the current dir.   That's the whole point of 
no_empty_cmd_completion, no?