From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10627 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2012 14:07:18 -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: X-Seq: 16939 Received: (qmail 21281 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2012 14:07:17 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, T_DKIM_INVALID,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.google.com designates 209.85.213.43 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xRZuOfYhZcHOMbVTQjATe3jMbaDDdlr9UIoMvAOnl1w=; b=aRLjmlTorTRi1ojF7YFUclCx5kyTIKb80sWH0PagvSelcYHBN49csOABUCmVu84714 aJkv3RXm+dfyEzQn8nnSN4fcdtb3Rt1FxPqwMgMySk5xxsE7HdWUOLFMY+DAHJ4r/Cno Z8QlvlkYtH9HOICHYEpXtVXrhp4xsokXt210M3UjrEHmTyeAw0CHvQIph+3k+swOPnHr CsGd+0ADyGHgVgX5JbHcxHAWggllolkuh2HYg8K/JU5+tR8LUFGDD9n2sX8S1HuPtJfN e9viDd7Ah1IywVZZSJwiu9fzvC8iFF10wZwjsjLBw9gzGXEyBdUeEt8aruEIuFutBeUL wUuw== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120330204112.00f969a9@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> References: <20120330204112.00f969a9@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:35:58 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Explicit colons in zstyle From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jesper_Nyg=E5rds?= To: zsh-users@zsh.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Peter Stephenson wrote: > I think the book (Oliver wrote that bit) is just making the point that > the completer style is always looked up with most of the fields empty. > By recognising the fact you can make it match many of the fields > exactly. > > The only difference with replace the :::: with :* is that it becomes > according to the rules a less exact match, so that if you happened to > have both definitions the former would take precedence. =A0That's not > something you typically need to worry about. I see. Thank you for the explanation.