From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18026 invoked from network); 15 Feb 1999 13:14:09 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 Feb 1999 13:14:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 14104 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 1999 13:13:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 5391 Received: (qmail 14097 invoked from network); 15 Feb 1999 13:13:19 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:12:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199902151312.OAA25238@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:30:57 -0800 Subject: Re: Thinking about Functions/Completion/* differently Bart Schaefer wrote: > ... > > ... (with the usual caveats about contexts like > parameter substitution that need some other key than "command name") ... And before I forget to mention this: people using the new style completion stuff may have noticed that completion after `$', `=', and `~' still automagically works if complist is used independent of the options given to it. This is due to the fact that this is still handled very deeply in the completion code. I was thinking about skipping over this code when the completion code is called from a completion widget and instead testing for it and reporting this to the widget as different CONTEXTs. This sound like the correct behavior, right? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de