From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6966 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2009 05:21:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 27392 Received: (qmail 10791 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2009 05:21:46 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <091111202117.ZM30768@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:21:17 -0800 In-reply-to: Comments: In reply to Greg Klanderman "Re: bug in 'rm' completion" (Nov 11, 9:48pm) References: <19191.43212.832827.724369@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <091109092926.ZM26572@torch.brasslantern.com> <091110075221.ZM27832@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: bug in 'rm' completion MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Nov 11, 9:48pm, Greg Klanderman wrote: } Subject: Re: bug in 'rm' completion } } otherwise it won't work correctly, for example: } } % rm -rf foo bar baz I guess I can't say that's an obscure case, but it sure does take a lot of work to arrange it. :-) } Do you want the analogous check wrapped around the second line? } Can we rely on $line[$#line+1,-1] to do the right thing? I think the latter is reliable, but the test doesn't hurt anything. } then presumably you want something like the new patch below.. Committed.