Re: Moving completion functions

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>]

On Mar 22,  9:46pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> Subject: Re: Moving completion functions
> 
> > Functions/Misc/acx		Functions/Examples	# Misc?
> > Functions/Misc/cx		Functions/Examples	# Misc?
> 
> I'd delete these because they would be better written as aliases.

I agree, which (jumping ahead) is why I do NOT agree with:

> I would class acx, cx, harden, proto, yp, yu, checkmail, mere, zed
> and zmv as useful functions which many people might want to use.

I would include harden, checkmail, mere, and definitely zed as "useful
functions which many people might want to use," but proto is marginal
(how many people code in C with exactly Paul Falstad's style?) and to
autoload all those those trivial one-liners is IMO a waste.

> > Functions/Misc/multicomp	Functions/Compctl
> 
> Is this one still relevant now that we have matching control.

It's too big to reasonably put in compctl-examples and remains relevant
to anyone not using the new completion system.  (multicomp is like the
_path_files function; no real overlap with matching control AFAICT.)

> > Functions/Misc/promptnl		Functions/Misc
> 
> This is new right? Was this something to do with evading the promptcr
> problem?

Yes, you call promptnl from precmd.  I suppose it (or contrib.yo) should
say that, somewhere.

> > Functions/Misc/run-help		Functions/Misc	# Add #autoload line?
> 
> On the basis that functions starting #autoload are autoloaded by
> compinit, and that #autoload was intended for functions which are part
> of the completion system, should we be using #autoload in
> non-completion system related functions.

That's why there's a `?' at the end of my comment.  So, leave run-help
as it is.

> > Functions/Misc/zless		Functions/Misc
> 
> I'd delete this one too because of the LESSPIPE feature in recent
> versions of less. It could always be found a good home on the web
> pages. If it stays, I'd put it in Examples.

I have no objection to moving this to Example.

> > Functions/Misc/zls		Functions/Misc
> 
> This I'd definitely put in Examples. I can't believe anyone would use
> it instead of their binary ls but it is a nice example for the stat
> module.

This is also fine with me.

> I agree with the Compctl division although it might be better to put
> them in the compctl-examples file to get them out of the way.

I'd actually rather split compctl-examples up into smaller files and put
them all in Functions/Compctl, but I suppose we're trying to discourage
use of compctl ...

> The example startup files are another thing we should look at before
> 4.0. I'd be in favour of modifying them to use new-style completion and
> having some typical example zstyles and generally to be a bit more
> up-to-date. If there is agreement on this, I'll come up with a
> suggested patch for them.

The main thing I want to do with the example startup files is to add a
batch of comments, possibly in all-caps, telling system administrators
NOT to drop these files into /etc/z*.  And maybe even put a "return 0"
at the top of each file just in case some nimrod copies them to /etc/
without looking at them.