From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29660 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2015 04:47:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 36286 Received: (qmail 23078 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2015 04:47:34 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments :references:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=BVDc7XyEMG0tkUEk85JlY2qSqMP3JZ8aOO9jfbJO0Pg=; b=I2th3X+JTsfqfUqz9yxpeNlzPDHTOLevUP3RFTolG7tmNWmXkLx4InyNWpIVlkTNvX xYyLq/s11jkqRfO4wAG1eyyqpsLN5WV6L7XcbJqt7p7ABBq1e5b+0jHOgLx0K16orzE0 Q7NFKGW3XOO924vHLchcbW2qXPsgkRTs6qudr5y554nIVDc1CG/sQ++teakHmYIgkTnG kpggKnl19qCHNzLiVrgFiZclSgN6yOcEWD8lrbmatgZVymmRXy8TBkb50EdIS/STJ81k zPInAh4dRccBVrEEOmgiAJW6mV5v8p7LsnXAX4+OGzn20KPIFe4GCQyueyFrNLZrBFn8 HfyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWhJX9HFft6g8r/Yc3Q+YFSHEfb3GvXChD/5g1HdC5Xeh+tpP+5bs4lC/Ird4sTKlCfl9f X-Received: by 10.202.77.78 with SMTP id a75mr1363060oib.32.1440650852794; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:47:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <150826214729.ZM12037@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:47:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: <150826213532.ZM31157@torch.brasslantern.com> Comments: In reply to Bart Schaefer "Re: Completion of prefix redirections is -command- instead of -redirect-" (Aug 26, 9:35pm) References: <20150826053928.GD19027@tarsus.local2> <150826111808.ZM30185@torch.brasslantern.com> <150826213532.ZM31157@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh workers Subject: Re: Completion of prefix redirections is -command- instead of -redirect- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 26, 9:35pm, Bart Schaefer wrote: } } Does this do it? To answer my own question, no, it doesn't ... or at least not entirely. Both WITH and WITHOUT the change in 36285, completing after this: % ls < ; completes files rather than commands. I suppose if you've botched the syntax you have no right to expect sanity, and the foregoing hasn't changed since 5.0.7, so we're no worse off.