From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-13020-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.auc.dk>
Received: (qmail 8949 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2000 07:26:22 -0000
Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 18 Oct 2000 07:26:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 6971 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2000 07:26:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 13020
Received: (qmail 6963 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2000 07:26:16 -0000
X-Envelope-Sender-Is: Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru (at relayer david.siemens.de)
From: "Andrej Borsenkow" <Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru>
To: <zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk>
Subject: RE: paths vs files tags
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:26:12 +0400
Message-ID: <001101c038d4$b14909f0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-reply-to: <200010180714.JAA10770@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400


> 
> 
> Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
> 
> > Both are tested in _path_files only and both are used to 
> configure _path_files
> > behaviour. Are they not redundant?
> 
> I've been wondering about this, too.  Initially I did that to
> distinguish between styles that affect single components and those
> that affect whole paths. But maybe we could reasonably change it.
> 
> And then use `files' or `paths'?
> 

paths is more close to the semantic, but files is easier to pronounce :-)

I vote for paths. 

-andrej