From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27319 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2000 19:12:05 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 19:12:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 10402 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2000 19:11:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 3352 Received: (qmail 10389 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2000 19:11:11 -0000 Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:34:35 +0200 From: Matthias Kopfermann To: Sven Wischnowsky Cc: zsh-users@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: how can one let completion work *inside* zsh scripts? Message-ID: <20000801173435.A9074@linux-ws.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de on Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:21:07PM +0200 On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:21:07PM +0200, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > But that almost suggest (at least to me, striving for consistency) to > put everything into a string of the form `:', where > is as in _arguments, i.e.: > > {...} = evaluate `...' > (1 2) = complete `1' and `2' > (( 1\:foo 2\:bar )) = complete `1' and `2' and describe them as > `foo' and `bar' in the list > > Hm, is this going too far? Or should we use the array-based solution > and allow to give the description with another parameter? it could be me alone, but i guess that arrays for one and then parameters with another description would be nice. perhaps because it is easier for the eye. have problems to have a series of ::: after each other. (my biggest problem with the new completion system. thats like using FPATH instead of fpath, i like the new way that ZSH solves the problem of pathes with an array. it's not the same here but it still is full of words.) > Or should we just support compcontext-as-array without (a) > description(s) (and the `func()' form) and let user's use functions if > they need descriptions? hmm, what do the others think?