From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4016 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2002 13:47:58 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 10 Jan 2002 13:47:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 24152 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2002 13:47:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16427 Received: (qmail 24047 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2002 13:47:43 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15421.39711.249899.991670@wischnow.berkom.de> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:46:07 +0100 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: _file_systems & Re: zstyle for _arguments feature request In-Reply-To: <20020109071947.43798.qmail@web10406.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020109071947.43798.qmail@web10406.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.5 (patch 3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Felix Rosencrantz wrote: > Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > >Err... pardon? ;-) Could you give us a code snippet to easily > >reproduce this? I currently don't have that much time, sorry. > > Sorry about that. I'm writing from another system. > Here's something a little more specific. > > I tried using the default completion for "enscript --font" > > @ enscript --font [] > ---- fontname > @ zstyle :completion::complete:enscript:option--font-1:option--font-1 fake > 'font3:This is font3' font4:Four font5 > @ enscript --font [] > ---- fontname > ---- fontname > > > Notice the "---fontname" description listed twice, and the need to specify the > "option--font-1" twice in the zstyle. Something looks like it is being called > twice incorrectly. Urgh. 1. The doubled `option-...' doesn't bother me a lot, that's just _arguments using the only sensible thing it knows about as the tag. Users can always use `:completion:...:*'. 2. The doubled description is the real problem. There is no action in the spec for --font. So the faked matches get added under that default description mentioned above and later _arguments uses message to add the explanation it always adds for an empty action in a spec. And that's the reason why the C code doesn't put the two groups together, which was irritating me before I looked. Hrm. I've got to think some more about this, or maybe someone else has ideas? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@berkom.de