RFC/discuss get_missing_command fires too often

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 11:31 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:

> > This would:
> >  - move errors about duplicate command names from startup to execution -
> >   notable 'bzr FOO' where FOO is duplicated, and 'bzr help commands' or
> >   'bzr help FOO'.
> >
> > I don't think we gain a lot of protection with the current system, but
> > perhaps it is worth keeping? If its worth keeping, then I propose to
> > tweak the get_cmd_object function to support a parameter controlling
> > whether get_missing_command fires.
> 
> What would that option actually mean?  It's not quite "give me only
> builtin commands."

Its 'dont lookup missing commands'. So the lookup-in-a-plugin-database
and guess-at-name and other things that hook into get_missing_command
wouldn't run. Its nothing to do with a command being builtin or not.

> If it means "give me a command object but don't load it's
> implementation" maybe that's better done by the returned command
> object being some kind of skeleton.

It doesn't mean that.

> This actually makes me wonder if the difference between "get_command"
> and "get_missing_command" really makes sense.

Why?

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090713/df870946/attachment.pgp