From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17908 invoked from network); 1 Dec 1996 18:29:44 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 1 Dec 1996 18:29:44 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA07198; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:09:01 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 13:09:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612011808.NAA28822@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: what should compctl's look like? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:41:24 PST." <961201094226.ZM20801243@srf-58.nbn.com> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 13:08:47 -0500 From: Richard Coleman Resent-Message-ID: <"orN372.0.Om1.tcSeo"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2511 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Bart spoke thusly: > A text format has some of the same problems -- I for one would love to > see compctl move away from all these cryptic command-line switches and > instead become a more structured construct with keywords etc. I agree with this. Essentially compctl is a 'language within a language'. It would be nice to see this 'language' developed to be something less cryptic. What what should it look like? Maybe someone could do some experiments with flex/lex and yacc/bison to see what might work. rc