Re: Specify completion without name

[Linda Walsh]

Clark J. Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 00:33, Peng Yu <pengyu.ut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But beware to clearly document these by giving working
> > EXAMPLE code which include these three commands (not just text
> > explanation without working code, by "working code" I mean code
> > snippet is discouraged, a complete completion function should be
> > provided).
>
> The bash man page already has ~70 pages manual. I don't like it to grow to
> ~700 pages (like the ABS Guide) with all the working examples you expected.
> :)
----
 Vs. having things undocumented, as is the case in the current bash man page.

 I think the bash doc maintainers would benefit greatly by looking at the
perl manpages, which generally do a good job of documenting a complex
product.

 Like... compat40 mentions it changes behavior, about interrupting a command
list, yet try to find out what that behavior is, or what compat40 would
change it 'to'?

Or how about, does compat 31 imply compat32 and compat40?  If not, does that
really mean compat31 is really 'compat31', or just "use <feature> 3.1" to
specify that a specific feature be used in it's 3.1 version vs. a newer version.

I agree insomuch as if every new incompatibility had to be thoroughly 
documented,
the impact of such incompatibilities might be more thoroughly thought out,
not to mention the benefit for users trying to read the man page to program
by...