Re: zsh's answer to the bash completion fm project

[John Buttery <john@io.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1693 bytes --]

* Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@berkom.de> [2002-04- 4 12:07:04 +0200]:
> About the compctl part: I'd only consider such a list of
> compctl-commands to be a todo-list of things that should be
> implemented for the new system.  And that may actually be helpful.
> I'm not sure that there will be many such cases, though, with the new
> system being as comprehensive as it already is.

  That's exactly the way I thought about it.

> About the function-directory: the new system uses a hierarchy of
> directories for classification and easier management.  New functions
> will and should be put into it (and hence will end up in the
> distribution).

  Ditto.

> For both parts: one of the things to look out for is opinions and
> suggestions for different ways completion behaves.  We recently had
> someone who user@host completions to be inserted in one go, not with
> `us<TAB>ho<TAB>'.  Collecting such things would be interesting so that
> we get a list of things we can try to make possible in the new system.

  Agree.

> I think they can still be combined, at least they should.  The
> overhead for compctl from a user's point of view is basically that
> there is another module loaded (for systems without dynamic linking it
> has to be linked into the zsh binary).  From my point of view there is
> quite a bit of legacy code in the completion code that's only needed
> to support compctl.  And I hate that, but don't see a way around it.

  Well, you just pretty much stated my exact vision for the project.  :) 

  I have a working prototype of the "master script"; I'll try and clean
it up a little more and post it later today.

-- 
john@io.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]