From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5744 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 18:36:10 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 18:36:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 18117 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2000 18:36:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9577 Received: (qmail 18108 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 18:36:02 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000204183557.ZM8737@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:35:57 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200002040959.KAA23014@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: _arguments problems" (Feb 4, 10:59am) References: <200002040959.KAA23014@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> <200002041418.PAA29032@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <200002041418.PAA29032@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: _arguments problems" (Feb 4, 3:18pm) X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: _arguments problems MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Feb 4, 10:59am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote (in 9559): } Subject: Re: _arguments problems } } *But* if we do that there wouldn't be a way to get at the options in } cases like this one (ok, it works with longer options but with short } ones like these one would have to type the whole option to complete } it). I'm really not sure if this is a good idea, I could only convince } myself to build that patch because one can always set the } prefix-needed style to false for such commands. } } I'd like to hear other opinions: does anyone think that this might } surprise users? Or maybe I'm worrying too much about to special a } case... On Feb 4, 3:18pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote (in 9568): } Subject: Re: _arguments problems } } That's a completely different problem. And since the option-rest specs } do that I agree that normal rest specs should do the same. So ... should we *not* apply 9559 ? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com