From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-29294-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 29916 invoked by alias); 15 May 2011 01:39:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 29294
Received: (qmail 1200 invoked from network); 15 May 2011 01:39:25 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <110514183909.ZM15134@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 18:39:07 -0700
In-reply-to: <BANLkTi=c-dxpE5Dtm-SAEFE8YJRaguc+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In reply to Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com>
 "Re: PATCH Re: squeeze-slashes false not working?" (May 14,  8:31pm)
References: <BANLkTikqnR3pJk8FzRT6Qo9J+wTMGSnycQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110513191710.657d2f61@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<BANLkTi=KyDfiM1YqXR0q1w-PxiAeQ0thdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110513195324.6ab90eb2@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<BANLkTi=7vnGkz2uPTyd3Br019SuxV5_Q2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<110513225805.ZM13712@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<BANLkTi=c-dxpE5Dtm-SAEFE8YJRaguc+Tw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: zsh workers <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH Re: squeeze-slashes false not working?
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On May 14,  8:31pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
}
} On 14 May 2011 07:58, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
} > On May 13, 10:07pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
} > }
} > } With the same and path-files off, it simply behaves as if I had ls
} > } /<tab>, ie it completes components in / after the four slashes.
} >
} > You mean path-completion off, but yes.  In this case it *should* be
} > happening this way because

I accidentally left that sentence unfinished:

... because by definition path-completion false means not to try to
do any completing between slashes (whether consecutive slashes or
not) unless the cursor is placed there and complete-in-word is set.
This is independent of the setting of squeeze-slashes.

Given that, does this next thing you said --

} So maybe the squeeze-slashes entry should mention something to the
} effect that disabling it will only allow other options to do stuff,
} but maybe nothing will. But in a less stupid way.

-- still mean anything?


--