From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8426 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2002 10:00:10 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Mar 2002 10:00:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 27042 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2002 10:00:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16797 Received: (qmail 27024 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2002 10:00:04 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15500.32700.620588.852242@wischnow.berkom.de> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:58:20 +0100 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Redirection completion In-Reply-To: <15500.28153.769884.199234@wischnow.berkom.de> References: <15496.46201.219885.149096@wischnow.berkom.de> <22196.1015596405@csr.com> <15496.50795.888698.447601@wischnow.berkom.de> <15500.28153.769884.199234@wischnow.berkom.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.95 under 21.5 (patch 3) "asparagus" XEmacs Lucid I wrote: > ... > > I'm not going to commit this patch before I get replies, but I like > it. A lot. Because it makes things easier without losing power. > One thing we could think about is a standard for offering more > information in the context name. I used parts separated by hyphens > becuase that's what we used before for sub-commands, but maybe there's > a better way or more places where we can offer more information. I forgot to say: somehow I think the way this is handled now is connected to the problem with default completions. My thoughts are very fuzzy, though. For values and redirections we now have a (what I consider) clean way to give default completions. I know that the my-accounts thing is on a different level, but does it have to be? Does anyone have the same feeling? Any ideas? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@berkom.de