From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22094 invoked from network); 11 Jan 1999 10:09:36 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Jan 1999 10:09:36 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA00186; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 05:06:54 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 05:06:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:05:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199901111005.LAA20539@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:38:28 -0800 Subject: Re: Latest patched development version Resent-Message-ID: <"mOOFL1.0.r2.-qScs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4891 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Bart Schaefer wrote: > > A long time ago, in a year far far away, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } Bruce Stephens wrote: > } > Bruce Stephens writes: > } > > } > > Completion seems to have vanished, but I just tried with zsh -f, and > } > > it works again, so that's presumably just something that's changed > } > > in the compctl syntax that's not being reported as an error. > } > > } > I've found it. It was this example completion: > } > > } > compctl -Tx 's[/home/] C[0,^/home/*/*]' -S '/' \ > } > -s '$(niscat auto_home.org_dir | \ > } > awk '\''/export\/[a-zA-Z]*$/ {print $NF}'\'' FS=/)' > } > } Peter's version contains my patch for completion continuing. With this > } we almost ever need a `-tc' in the `-T' completion. > } > } (I said that trouble would come of that...) > > Is there any reason that -tc simply can't be implicit? That is, why not > always continue with the next suitable completion, leaving -t+ -t- and -tx > to change what "next suitable" means? And then perhaps throw in something > like -tn to mean "no, DON'T continue." > > Seems to me it's more often the case that you want to go on trying other > possible completions rather than giving up. The default should be what > the most common case is. I wanted to leave the previous behavior unchanged as much as possible. The `-T' is the only case where multiple compctl's were tested in all other cases making -t implicit would make things differ from the way it was before my patches. So we could make -tc implicit for -T (at least the `global' -tc, before any -x). That would make things behave like they always did but I didn't like to add special cases at that time. Anyway before I change anything I would like to hear a bit more what people would like to have, ok? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de