Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go

Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go

[Sven Wischnowsky]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Mar 21,  5:10pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> } Subject: Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go
> }
> } > }   zstyle ... tag-order --foo=files --bar=files
> } > }   zstyle '*-foo' ignored-patterns '*.ps'
> } > 
> } > Tags right now are pretty much predetermined by the completion functions
> } > that use them, e.g. the way _files uses globbed-files.  Hmm ... is that
> } > changed by what you're working on now?
> } 
> } Yes, and that's what the original example above was about -- the
> } `user' `invented' the tag names `foo' and `bar', linking them to the
> } `method' `files'. And before that I made the suggestion to allow the
> } file-patterns style to contain invented tag names.
> 
> So where do the method names come from?  I don't think we want this to
> be so configurable that, for example, the file-patterns style could be
> caused to generate parameter names.  Do we?

Should be answered by the message I just sent...

> } > 		    shift "i > $# ? $# : i"  # Stupid shift error on i > $#
> } 
> } Yes! It's annoying, isn't it? I was tempted more than one to change it.
> 
> Bash gives the same error.  Sigh.

So does ksh (`shift: bad number'). Damn. Does that make `argv=( $argv[2,-1] )'
more efficient in some cases? (Assignments are one of those things
that get optimised by the execution code, avoiding the call to
execpline*() and execcmd().)

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de

Shifty shift (Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go)

[Bart Schaefer]

On Mar 22,  2:32pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} 
} > } > 	   shift "i > $# ? $# : i"  # Stupid shift error on i > $#
} > } 
} > } Yes! It's annoying, isn't it? I was tempted more than one to change it.
} > 
} > Bash gives the same error.  Sigh.
} 
} So does ksh (`shift: bad number'). Damn.

Foolish consistency?

} Does that make `argv=( $argv[2,-1] )' more efficient in some cases?

More efficient than "i > $# ? $# : i"?  Probably, if the array is short.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com