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=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 955a8fee for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:07:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 28966 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2019 17:07:05 -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: 24525 Received: (qmail 24001 invoked by uid 1010); 13 Dec 2019 17:07:05 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mta04.eastlink.ca by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.102.1/25656. spamassassin: 3.4.2. Clear:RC:0(24.224.136.10):SA:0(-2.6/5.0):. Processed in 2.816772 secs); 13 Dec 2019 17:07:05 -0000 X-Envelope-From: rayandrews@eastlink.ca X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.eastlink.ca designates 24.224.136.10 as permitted sender) X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=XKxOtjpE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=zv49KfEsxEDzuN5AGO7r0Q==:117 a=zv49KfEsxEDzuN5AGO7r0Q==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=FEblJaxgbrq6ANkC4UoA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Vade-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudelledgleejucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecugfetuffvnffkpffmpdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomheptfgrhicutehnughrvgifshcuoehrrgihrghnughrvgifshesvggrshhtlhhinhhkrdgtrgeqnecukfhppedvgedrvddtjedrledtrdduleegnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpedvgedrvddtjedrledtrdduleegpdhhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddtrdefngdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehrrgihrghnughrvgifshesvggrshhtlhhinhhkrdgtrgdprhgtphhtthhopeiishhhqdhushgvrhhsseiishhhrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-Vade-Score: 0 X-Vade-State: 0 X-EL-IP-NOAUTH: 24.207.90.194 Subject: Re: completion of filenames To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <1575995450.4447.3.camel@samsung.com> <1576254243.5214.21.camel@samsung.com> From: Ray Andrews Message-id: Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:06:26 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <1576254243.5214.21.camel@samsung.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Content-language: en-US On 2019-12-13 8:24 a.m., Peter Stephenson wrote: > Well, you're welcome to do that, of course, but I can't help thinking > you're shooting yourself in the foot. I'll be quite prepared to abandon the idea if I get into trouble. Learn by doing tho. > The system is designed to work > out of the box; while you can make it do other things, obviously that > implies you need some understanding of how it works before you can build > it up yourself.  Your questions don't tend to suggest that's currently > the case.  Background reading (such as Oliver's chapters in From Bash To > Z Shell) and studying the documentation and the shell code itself are > the first steps to getting there. The completion documentation is overwhelming.  It would be a year of study to understand it.  Without hints I have no chance.  If there is some tractable way of getting what I'd like, that's great, if not, that's ok.  Bart and Dana recently showed me how to complete local files even if the command finds no acceptable matches, so what I'm asking for is sorta an expansion of that idea. > If you're trying to get completion for suffix aliases going, the normal > way to do this would be to assure yourself they work with a vanilla set > up, Yeah, that would be 90% of it, and since it should work, a forensic might be the way to go, but for now  I'm still pursuing the possibility that any filename completion from the beginning of a line might be doable.  If not then just as you say. > then see what configuration of yours is stopping it working.  In my > experience, this is generally more effective that telling people that > what you've currently got doesn't work. Well, I'd not say 'doesn't work' (except for suffix aliases) , it seems to be designed to complete after a command.  If it can be tweaked to not require a command that's great. But I must say, given what *can* be done, which is astonishing, asking for plain vanilla completion without reference to a command would not seem like asking for the moon. I'd expect it to  be simply a matter of skipping over the 'find command' part of completion. Or not.  Anyway for now I don't even know where to look.