From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15040 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2001 11:04:11 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Jul 2001 11:04:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 7092 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2001 11:03:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 4031 Received: (qmail 7081 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2001 11:03:54 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010712125607.0371ca50@imap.local.mscha.com> X-Sender: ml@imap.local.mscha.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:03:40 +0200 To: From: Michael Schaap Subject: Re: ehh... zsh: correct 'cvs' to '_cvs' [nyae]? n In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010712001520.0382edc0@imap.local.mscha.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: at mscha.com by AMaViSd snapshot-20010407 (http://amavis.org/) At 07:37 12-7-2001, Andrej Borsenkow wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Michael Schaap wrote: > > > (The problem is that zsh doesn't find "/bin/cvs", but > > "/bin/cvs.exe". Therefore, it tries to correct "cvs" to the closest it can > > find, which is the autoloaded "_cvs" function.) > > > >So, once again - should we stop hashing foo.exe (i.e. hash just foo)? >Currently foo.exe is not visible anyway so I cannot see what difference >would it have. I don't think we should. If we would, running % ls.exe would no longer work. (Bad example - nobody would try this for ls, they might for other (Windows) executables. For instance, I could imagine typing "cmd.exe".) The way things are done now seem to be the same as for Bash (which is, after all, the Official Cygwin Shell). Also in Bash, ls is completed to both "ls" and "ls.exe", and /bin/ls is only completed to "/bin/ls.exe". I think this is the best we can do, without hacking the completion system itself. >The problem is, of course, =cmd won't be the same as /path/to/cmd.exe. But >it the same with my patch as well. I don't see why that would be a problem. - Michael