From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24029 invoked from network); 2 Nov 1998 11:52:18 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 Nov 1998 11:52:18 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA13443; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 06:45:20 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 06:45:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:43:21 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199811021143.MAA22063@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Mon, 2 Nov 1998 01:29:27 -0800 Subject: Re: BUG: Extended completion with alternative completion Resent-Message-ID: <"NAQQO2.0.xH3.GjPFs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4498 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Bart Schaefer wrote: > ... > > There are two problems: (1) in get_ccompctl(), when we chose to return > the n[] completion, we lose track of the alternative (which hangs off > the xor pointer in the head of the linked list of -x patterns); (2) we're > prematurely returning an error in makecomplist(), so even if we still had > the handle to the xor, we'd never follow it. > > In short, alternative completion only works with extended completion when > none of the extended patterns match, which doesn't seem right to me. > > It's not hard to fix (2), but I'm leery of messing with (1) when there are > a lot of other pending completion patches to be folded in to 3.1.6. Sven, > are you out there? > Well, (1) is taken care of in the modifications of the completion code that are soon to appear. And I have to admit that I don't really understand your other problem. If you want cdmatch to be called even if the cursor is before the '/', you should use `C[0,*/*]', the manual says that with `n[i,s]' anything up to the i'th occurrence of s is not part of the completion string, so the cursor isn't in a place where something can be completed. Also I don't have any trouble with your second compctl-version (trouble in the sense of SEGV or something like that). So, could you please tell me what you wanted to have completed after the `cd S/M'? (I guess you want `cd Src/Modules' but that would also require a change in cdmatch.) Maybe I will then understand which fix you are suggesting for (2). Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de