From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6069 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2001 16:51:27 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Jun 2001 16:51:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 10224 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2001 16:50:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15168 Received: (qmail 10200 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2001 16:50:34 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1010628165004.ZM8151@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:50:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200106281621.MAA10940@aragorn.cortexmachina.com> Comments: In reply to Peter Whaite "Picky criticism of ls completion list formatting" (Jun 28, 12:21pm) References: <200106281621.MAA10940@aragorn.cortexmachina.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Peter Whaite , zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Picky criticism of ls completion list formatting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 28, 12:21pm, Peter Whaite wrote: } Subject: Picky criticism of ls completion list formatting } } Listing completions for 'ls' uses more lines because it formats using } one less column. } } Mainly just curious why there is a difference. Because zsh isn't ls. Zsh doesn't invoke ls to generate the completion listing, it uses its own filename-generation (globbing) routines and computes the columns itself. Try `setopt list_packed'. If that doesn't make a difference, then there may be something wrong with the "packing" code that we need to look at. -- 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