From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13690 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2000 16:56:17 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Feb 2000 16:56:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 5252 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2000 16:56:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9881 Received: (qmail 5241 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2000 16:56:07 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000225165536.ZM22846@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:55:36 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200002251316.OAA22789@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: Questions/comments on completion code that arise from PWS's zsh guide" (Feb 25, 2:16pm) References: <200002251316.OAA22789@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Questions/comments on completion code that arise from PWS's zsh guide MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Feb 25, 2:16pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: Questions/comments on completion code that arise from PWS's z } } Question: should we change the hosts-ports-users style to } `users-hosts-ports' and allow `user@host:port' (although that would } then also allow `user@host@port' because the separator is used for all } parts)? I'd be in favor of that. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com