This just affects how it's rendered; rather than attempting to highlight
these blocks as a shell script, they'll get highlighted as console
output.
See the rendered versions for a better comparison.
`clap_generate` originally intended to be "generate anything". With
`fig`, we already broke one part out. With #3174's man support, we are
also looking at keeping it separate:
- More freedom to iterate on the API
- Uniqueness (and potential weight) of its dependencies
- man generation is normally more for distribution while completions are
a mix of being distributed with the app or the app generating the
completions (which will be exacerbated if we move most completion
parsing logic to be in Rust)
So `clap_generate` is having a lot more limited of a role than the
original name conveys. I worry the generic name will be a hindrance to
people discovering and using it (yes, documentation can help but there
are limits).
I hesitated because we are on the verge of releasing 3.0. However, doing
it even later will be even more disruptive because more people will be
using it (crates.io lists ~70 people using `clap_generate`).
To ease things, we are still releasing `clap_generate` as a wrapper
around `clap_complete`.
Confirmed this works with [`argfile`](https://docs.rs/argfile/latest/argfile/)
And then running in clap
```
$ RUSTDOCFLAGS="--cfg docsrs" cargo +nightly doc --all-features
```
They now show up!
Experimenting with treating clap-derive and clap one and the same from
the release process perspective. The completion generators are a bit
more independent.
This is carried over from the clap_derive examples. Looking over the
other examples, I feel like they are covered by other examples or by the
derive reference. We should call out deny missing docs though.
This creates distinct tutorial examples from complex feature examples
(more how-tos). Both sets are getting builder / derive versions (at
least the critical ones).
