Re: Moving completion functions

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>]

On Mar 20,  9:32pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
} Subject: Re: Moving completion functions
}
} Bart wrote:
}  
} > What exactly would you like fpath to contain by default?  Nothing?
} 
} Yes. Unless the parent process exported FPATH to zsh.

Long, long ago it was decided that it was a bad idea to import FPATH.
So long ago that it's not in the zsh-workers archive, unfortunately.

Probably has something to do with the fact that its a huge security
hole, i.e., you can cause some other user's shell to inherit a trojan
via any function you can guess he might autoload.

} > it also sets it to get the stuff from the Functions subdirectory, etc.
} 
} I always thought of them as just examples and user contributions as
} opposed to being part of zsh's functionality. Before the new
} completion, they had to be manually installed and added to $fpath. I've
} just noticed though that they are now mentioned in the documentation
} which I suppose makes them more official.

Not all of them are mentioned in the docs, and some of them really are
not much more than examples; I think we should rearrange some of the
files under Functions/ while we're doing the ones for Completion/.  (I
will try to make some suggestions after I've had some sleep.)
 
} > If we remove the Completion directories from the default fpath, then we
} > must also give up --enable-function-subdirs.  Not that we can't use the
} > subdirs for installation, but that we must hardwire the installation so
} > that compinit can know what to add to fpath.  Even then, compinit needs
} > to get the base path (to which to append /Completion/...) from 
} > somewhere.
} 
} As I said with the original suggestion, there could be a variable set
} to point to the base of the installed functions.

A parameter set how?  By hardwiring it at compile time?  I suppose that
the zsh/complete module could define one.

} I don't understand why compinit would need to know before-hand what
} directories it should add - it would just use a bit of globbing
} modified for $OSTYPE and options passed to it

Maybe; I'm not convinced.

} Do we need to account for kshautoload though?

The patch I included for compinit, did so, for compinit itself; but:

} How does someone with kshautoload set get the new completion system to
} work short of doing unsetopt kshautoload?

The only way is to "zcompile -z" the whole thing and then put the .zwc
file in fpath.  This has been mentioned before (it may even be in the
docs somewhere).

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

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net