Re: UPDATE: command: negation

Ps. 'complete_against' is exactly the phrase I would've chosen, although I'm not positive it'd be considered proper English. I'd say 95% of Englishmen and Americans would understand it though. Good word choice, sir.

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Thorsten Wißmann <edu _at_ thorsten _minus_ wissmann _dot_ de> wrote:

Hy Tylo,

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:30:39AM -0800, Tyler Thomas Hart wrote:
> Thanks, I completely overlooked that!

> I've also changed the name of the function from
> invert_return to invert_return_command, since it seems like the syntax all
> the other commands use.
>
> The patches for negation with command completion are attached. Should I be
> squashing my commits?

In future: Yes. I did this for you in this case and removed some
trailing whitespaces. I also changed COMMANDS to COMMAND in the
documentation because ! only accepts one command.

I also changed the "invert_return" to "negate" command so that the
naming is consistent.

Furthermore the completion function has to be called "complete_negate"
because it completes the arguments to the negate command, whereas e.g.
"complete_against_tags" completes a parameter by looking at the list of
tags. (But I am not sure if 'against' is the correct english word)

> I've implimented command completion using the check-and-shift method from
> complete_chain.

But you didn't change the parameters to complete_command, so argc and
pos were reduced by 2 and argv was incremented by 2. So I changed the
parameters. And there only is no completion if pos is <= 0, because for
pos = 1, the command name has to be completed.

I also added a note in the NEWS, please also add a appropriate NEWS
entry if you add a command or setting. You also should add your full
name in the author field.

Due to these modifications I'd like you to acknowledge the attached
patch (e.g. via e-mail or irc in #herbstluftwm), then I'll merge it to
master.

Regards,
Thorsten