From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20492 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2015 05:26:52 -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: 19712 Received: (qmail 20588 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2015 05:26:49 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=LnDZmuG5lrpEVveXBzQpKUiUC1gLk0lb3eE1ZYZJsPk=; b=bhgXpuNt+AILgyFT9iWXNbpHaH9O3Vowbt3UDKYasTwU7bJ19ccpTLcvviuuRKGZ/L J54CDiEC2OUowkBewV4DvbNI2RIV+dST7L9yBQwSXBva6MVtfkQY0mxJlxmAq4z8yYz3 Z3kcWE5Q98+Yts+BCCq5ahrJ7sNGaOD7WhyyU+y+OsSQmju8ONO+Alohc43heTpTQk7q DtvlXQQwjnJza6REhq1VurWPkbvKlvv6Zz6gm3NYH/Dr6vmkrgDUQ/pd45Q+hIVvdZ+B kgGcidryxIqgDyRzrtG/pi4rWzEJmht/YtzgpS1YkHZtJaz3ZQmhMOlzx/MYis/hgI8q Wbsw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPh6d5Gj6Xb04UzUXqQQdSaIqHFdWw0Wl8So1vhsm/OqkAzXTCaDXymS86sLf9PN08QfMM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.200.234 with SMTP id jv10mr15025756wjc.110.1420694805057; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 21:26:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150108004323.GA7954@xvii.vinc17.org> References: <5488D414.6010300@eastlink.ca> <30453.1418258082@thecus.kiddle.eu> <5488F0AC.2040901@eastlink.ca> <141210214454.ZM12261@torch.brasslantern.com> <5489C8F4.8030703@eastlink.ca> <141211092824.ZM13349@torch.brasslantern.com> <5489F1BC.5000900@eastlink.ca> <20150107150109.GA14088@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr> <20150108004323.GA7954@xvii.vinc17.org> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 21:26:44 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: completion From: Bart Schaefer To: Zsh Users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > But the ambiguity shouldn't be intentional. Nevertheless, it is. Maybe not so much unintentional, as made unavoidable by the prior constraint that zstyle be a generic lookup mechanism rather than be tightly coupled to the semantics of completion contexts. > zstyle ':completion:*:complete:*' matcher-list [...] > > If * matches everything, then this could mean [any of] > > :completion:[any function]:complete:[any cmd]:[any arg]:[any tag] > :completion:[any function]:[any completer]:complete:[any arg]:[any tag] > :completion:[any function]:[any completer]:[any cmd]:complete:[any tag] You're correct, it could. But "matcher-list" also has to match, and THAT only happens in one of those three cases, so there's no need to constrain the pattern any further (unless you WANT to; refer to my car-cover analogy).