From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19155 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 16:24:07 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 16:24:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 23554 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2003 16:23:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6763 Received: (qmail 23510 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2003 16:23:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 16:23:50 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [66.93.131.57] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 11 Nov 2003 16:23:50 -0000 Received: from lorien.emufarm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lorien.emufarm.org (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id hABGNd1C026951; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:23:39 -0800 Received: (from duvall@localhost) by lorien.emufarm.org (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id hABGNc3s026950; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:23:38 -0800 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:23:38 -0800 From: Danek Duvall To: Oliver Kiddle Cc: Jonas Juselius , zsh-users@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Completion function for bitkeeper? Message-ID: <20031111162338.GD23138@lorien.emufarm.org> Mail-Followup-To: Danek Duvall , Oliver Kiddle , Jonas Juselius , zsh-users@sunsite.dk References: <20030523160020.GA9026@borho.org> <20030523160155.GA14388@lorien.emufarm.org> <20031106153225.GA491@lorien.emufarm.org> <1281.1068232665@athlon> <20031110182013.GA20547@lorien.emufarm.org> <9219.1068538977@gmcs3.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9219.1068538977@gmcs3.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Oliver Kiddle wrote: > Searching for expl in zshcompsys, it is only used in examples. The one > exception is in the context of _arguments actions where it isn't just a > convention (_arguments can't use positional parameters for actions). And as an action in _arguments is exactly how I'm using the _sccsfiles function. See my posting from May 23 that includes the _bk script. I'm not sure what you mean by your parenthetical statement. My action certainly does have positional parameters passed to it, some of which are the ones I specify as its arguments in my call to _arguments, some of which are passed in without my telling them to be. > I certainly can't see anywhere where it suggests that you can expect > it to be set by a calling function. Except by _arguments. > The two entirely different sets of information system isn't ideal but > the positional parameters are the most convenient place for passing > information around. Then why in $expl in the single case of _arguments? > For now completion functions should avoid certain compadd options for > passing other information. zparseopts tends to make it easy enough to > follow this. If you really want lots of options, follow _arguments and > have a `-O array' option for passing compadd options. Hm. I just saw that. So in addition to the documented methods of using $expl in an action of _arguments to get compadd args and using some of the positional parameters, there's also the suggested method of passing them in through -O? What a wealth! > compadd arguments aren't passed in $expl. Except from _arguments (not to belabor the point or anything ;-). Thanks, Danek