From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10354 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2000 09:05:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 19 Sep 2000 09:05:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 5895 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2000 09:04:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12843 Received: (qmail 5887 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2000 09:04:41 -0000 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:04:00 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Subject: Re: generals observations about completion system In-reply-to: "Your message of Tue, 19 Sep 2000 04:59:29 -0000." <1000919045929.ZM30416@candle.brasslantern.com> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Message-id: <0G140090FMIN8S@la-la.cambridgesiliconradio.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bart wrote: > It does tend to be easier to add new completion functions than it is to > document them. I haven't had much time for replying (have you seen the specification for Bluetooth park mode? :-() but self-documenting functions with something like pod, except using shell functions to strip out the bits and turn them into yodl, should be pretty easy. Adding comments is usually much easier than fiddling with the full documentation. Moving the string functions to their own file would be a step in the right direction, too. It's hard to know what's in utils.c. (It's not as if the rest of the shell doesn't consist of utilities, despite the double negative.) By the way, I'm finally getting a week's holiday from tomorrow and luckily in a PC-free zone. -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070