From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23737 invoked from network); 6 Jun 1999 16:54:34 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 6 Jun 1999 16:54:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 24233 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 1999 16:54:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 2361 Received: (qmail 24226 invoked from network); 6 Jun 1999 16:54:20 -0000 To: zsh-users@sunsite.auc.dk Sender: monnier@tequila.cs.yale.edu From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: lists.zsh.users Subject: Re: Call for opinions on a couple of prospective zsh patches References: <990606065150.ZM9165@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: 06 Jun 1999 12:50:57 -0400 Message-ID: <5lr9np8e8e.fsf@tequila.cs.yale.edu> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.3 Path: tequila.cs.yale.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: tequila.cs.yale.edu X-Trace: 6 Jun 1999 12:50:57 -0500, tequila.cs.yale.edu >>>>> "Bart" == Bart Schaefer writes: > * Completion using "dynamic abbreviations" after the manner of the emacs [...] > * Partial word motions in the face of mixed case, i.e. move the cursor to [...] > * Support for the LS_COLORS environment string, to colorize file names in I think adding anything to 3.0 is a mistake. We should instead hurry to get 3.2 out the door. 3.1.x has too many neat features that most people don't get to use since RedHat and friends only come with 3.0.5. Adding any of the three to 3.1 makes sense, but to 3.0 ? I really wish the next 3.1.x were called 3.2.0. Stefan PS: GNU ls's LS_COLORS code is brain dead: if you want to include it at least try to fix it so that its auto-detection of color capability is a bit less pathetically optimistic (trying to colorize the output when TERM=dumb is ...well... dumb!)