From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from primenet.com.au (ns1.primenet.com.au [203.24.36.2]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 76ee0c64 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 23:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5227 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2019 23:45:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 24366 Received: (qmail 13451 invoked by uid 1010); 18 Oct 2019 23:45:02 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-il1-f172.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.102.0/25601. spamassassin: 3.4.2. Clear:RC:0(209.85.166.172):SA:0(-1.9/5.0):. Processed in 4.429199 secs); 18 Oct 2019 23:45:02 -0000 X-Envelope-From: dana@dana.is X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _netblocks.google.com designates 209.85.166.172 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dana-is.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=AdP/GJ+QiIDutek7K4VvGw0hUOX8O66RV+rKaw6iQoo=; b=L4xBpXKv1lt2EqjwwEShh4KcwiuGzi0yF5GkTCnptHuwPf1J8RIWUce6oXMRshPro2 Hu/qkRjHuW/+dFXmVYS5iSYDNfYMXu+R3nXJVXLap1OLolnaMzkqAKj/DuWC3L4cvfrx dbJIHW6mQhbCnrZKH6fi9kd1s0NSff6CeHwYMgAnx+3oPYclhg7QS8n20F6lyddKMhx/ oj4L9IpNYwk1PY+XtzHG1K/pJZ7e6GKvAD7YVxUOI36XuEKGoyyblcw7Sq8u06/F1Spb dsQv2kISCyBouZTA0pEb/X3tRYh3giubA6n1PD6MHQWnWA82yYE2DqMHb59B5Du60iKu TPDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=AdP/GJ+QiIDutek7K4VvGw0hUOX8O66RV+rKaw6iQoo=; b=Qu97en3GFpiC732EJVpAAYEl1BhAQOMtp9xHBUFPse4aPhLUWW2S9MdmaRwXbJ+Y6O Xtq7Nnv/29HDoakq/rHhQV/fi/6ckR4AQJsi60kLxMnQSxXdqN9t/tUB6NeZI3yPS9wn YpOidbB2153iT5eaJdG6pOZTeB9qmecyI6vY3VcBUKDdHphl/97xuh2bCu03Mwi8eQ/+ QZ6RaNzq54sYy13hJL4y9tnJcAtGE402V5l6nugZ0lqJNx83m3YxOb+bwf/4Vubeg0gJ yS/O3WCfPfS54K86QMl5GTNVOAlGHy2JOFkpkkaCG2oaNRogdK+d2BWRsWgVD6ZFAGM6 DSnw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVv2Efglb2sH9GZdS+/y4HJwtTtAqOy5LzoQQtyWCarjqiZeiEn pSeoF0nSstHIl13Mm7s0v+cnqiOOEHsc3A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxOKYs9mf6UNfQYM5fSawBrEG0a7GPNYL2ECmp+29Lk7qZWgl+Q1hnDfSbIDcEBY4ngCfjBfg== X-Received: by 2002:a92:9ecd:: with SMTP id s74mr13367510ilk.145.1571442265565; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: Fake parameter completion? From: dana In-Reply-To: <7C2ECA3E-EA6B-4C31-BF3A-1CF791F71785@mac.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 18:44:24 -0500 Cc: zsh-users Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3D4F79EC-3BFD-4966-99B8-F67BF5CFD8F1@dana.is> References: <7C2ECA3E-EA6B-4C31-BF3A-1CF791F71785@mac.com> To: Chris Nebel X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) On 18 Oct 2019, at 16:08, Chris Nebel wrote: > 1. Why are =E2=80=9Cfake=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cfake-parameters=E2=80=9D = distinct styles? Obviously they > behave differently in practice, but why couldn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9Cfake=E2= =80=9D take the position > into account and add the magic =E2=80=9C=3D=E2=80=9C like = =E2=80=9Cfake-parameters=E2=80=9D does? The immediate reason they work differently is that the styles are = applied at different points during completion. fake and fake-always are handled by = the low-level function _description, whilst fake-files and fake-parameters = are handled by their respective higher-level functions directly. It probably could have been designed differently, but doing it this way = seems (comparatively) straight-forward, especially since they use incompatible syntaxes for their values. But this was all long before my time, so i'm = just speculating On 18 Oct 2019, at 16:08, Chris Nebel wrote: > 2. What is the actual value of the =E2=80=9C*=E2=80=9D in the context? = Not =E2=80=9Cparameters=E2=80=9D, > apparently. (I should mention that I do not truly understand = zshcompsys.) The tag used for parameter completion is parameters, but _parameters = omits it when it looks up the style. I confess i'm not sure what the significance = of that is dana