Re: completion cleanup discussion

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> If I want to use exactly one completion for which there already happens
> to be a widget implementation, why should I have to redo all my key
> bindings and load other extra functions and dispatch-table arrays just
> to get at it?

Touche.

> If we're working out all these complex widget functions, they at least
> should be maximally re-usable.

Certainly, yes.

> What do ksh parameter namespaces look like, syntactically?

I had this from the bash-FAQ, but they aren't really supported, it
seems. But still: in ksh one can use dots in parameter names (that's
what they are referring to in the bash-FAQ). I can't find any other
fancy stuff you can do with prefixes (i.e. namespaces) in the ksh
manual now that I had a look at it. But that shouldn't stop us from
adding real namespace with the same syntax (`.complete.comps',
`.complete.patcomps') if we feel that this is interesting to have. I'm 
not proposing to implement this, though.

> Why not in the manual?  The Perl manual has sections that are entirely
> dedicated to "template" implementations of various Perl idioms.  If we do
> arrange for installation in $(libdir) of the Functions/ directory, there's
> no reason not to treat it as a real part of zsh and have a manual section
> devoted to it.

What I really meant was: not in the completion manual. As an extra
manual section (included in zshall, info, ...): ok, yes.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de