From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2891 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2002 14:12:23 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 8 Mar 2002 14:12:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 6353 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2002 14:12:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16785 Received: (qmail 6340 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2002 14:12:17 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15496.50795.888698.447601@wischnow.berkom.de> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:10:51 +0100 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Redirection completion In-Reply-To: <22196.1015596405@csr.com> References: <15496.46201.219885.149096@wischnow.berkom.de> <22196.1015596405@csr.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.5 (patch 3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid Peter Stephenson wrote: > ... > > I don't understand the reasoning: why does this need to be different > from the way options or arguments work? For redirection it would seem > to be a similar sort of case, where you might want to match on the > command name in the normal way. Values certainly demand different > handling. But then surely the logical thing is to keep the type > separate from the argument and have > > :completion::complete:-value-:GZIP: > > as the context? In terms of nicely separated parts (of the context name) I'm with you, but think of things like: LDFLAGS='-I I've got to play and think some more... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@berkom.de