From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27958 invoked from network); 17 Nov 1997 17:28:13 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 Nov 1997 17:28:13 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA04912; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:26:57 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:26:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711171626.LAA04893@math.gatech.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: comments in completion In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:45:22 PST." <971117074522.ZM24165@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:26:18 +0000 From: Bruce Stephens Resent-Message-ID: <"Qbddu2.0.hC1.H17Sq"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3619 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu schaefer@brasslantern.com said: > It wouldn't have to be a list of descriptions; one string would be > sufficient. (That's the best you get now with -X anyway.) > My point was that you can't *just* extend the -K function. You might > have perfectly good completion that doesn't use -K but that needs to > compute an explanation string. Sure. I must admit, I was thinking of the programmable ones, but you're quite right. schaefer@brasslantern.com said: > It'd probably be sufficient to make a variant of -X that applies > expansions in the manner of -s. Wouldn't this be a bit clunky with programmable completion? Surely if I'm using a function to generate completions (a list of jobs, or a list of suitable hostnames or whatever) then it would be natural to explain them there? Am I misunderstanding something; I confess it feels a bit yucky to have two places where descriptions come from?