From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4783 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 15:46:53 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 15:46:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 6482 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2003 15:46:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6771 Received: (qmail 6470 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 15:46:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 15:46:21 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [66.93.131.57] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 15:46:20 -0000 Received: from lorien.emufarm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lorien.emufarm.org (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id hAEFkA1C009738; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:46:10 -0800 Received: (from duvall@localhost) by lorien.emufarm.org (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id hAEFk9Md009737; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:46:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:46:08 -0800 From: Danek Duvall To: Oliver Kiddle Cc: Jonas Juselius , zsh-users@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Completion function for bitkeeper? Message-ID: <20031114154608.GA6959@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> <20031111162338.GD23138@lorien.emufarm.org> <901.1068577572@athlon> <20031111212828.GA28125@lorien.emufarm.org> <29114.1068797096@gmcs3.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29114.1068797096@gmcs3.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:04:56AM +0100, Oliver Kiddle wrote: > Having $expl stuff added after the first word is exactly the behaviour > that is wanted in virtually 100% of all cases. So let me ask, what am I doing wrong that makes me believe that I don't want it in my case? Is there a conventional way of passing arguments to an action helper function and not getting them mixed up with arguments intended for compadd? Is there functionality I'm missing because I'm not doing the conventional thing? > > > How's that bitkeeper function doing these days by the way? Is it > > > at a stage we could include with zsh? Does it conflict with _sccs? > > > > Well, none of the usual zsh folks commented on it, so while it works for > > I suspect none of the usual zsh folks use bitkeeper. That may be the case; I still might have expected some comments on style, missing functionality (like I'm not passing anything to compadd ;-) or things completely unrelated to bitkeeper. > If you send me your latest version, I'll take a look. I'll send that out later today. > > - I don't think that it conflicts with _sccs at all, but it might be > > nice to get _sccs to use _sccsfiles in the appropriate places. > > I'll be interested to see if that does anything useful for sccs. I use > Sun teamware at work which is sccs underneath so I do use the sccs > completion. As do I (I actually use it primarily; I hardly touch bk), so I do have a version of _sccs that uses _sccsfiles. It's not completely useless. :) Danek