lenz

I was thinking of making some options "completable", that is, if missing, they would be asked for interactively. What do you think?

Maybe we could have an "alias" type for option, so we could say something like: ``` {:option "pa" :short "a" :as "Parameter A" :type :int :default 0} {:option "parameter-a" :short...

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/911168/how-to-detect-if-my-shell-script-is-running-through-a-pipe

we could make it something pretty unlikely and default; you do not often use `--shell-completion` as an argument for your source file name, right?

See also: https://godoc.org/github.com/codegangsta/cli#BashCompleteFunc

pip3 has it too: [~]$ pip3 completion --bash ``` # pip bash completion start _pip_completion() { COMPREPLY=( $( COMP_WORDS="${COMP_WORDS[*]}" \ COMP_CWORD=$COMP_CWORD \ PIP_AUTO_COMPLETE=1 $1 ) ) } complete -o default...

See also: https://tuzz.tech/blog/how-bash-completion-works

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23254432

This project has a wondeful on-line help: https://github.com/chriswalz/bit that seems to be created with https://github.com/posener/complete/tree/master

I would not do it now, as I plan to do major changes as per #69