From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5706 invoked from network); 26 Feb 1999 12:44:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 26 Feb 1999 12:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 27535 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 1999 12:44:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 5541 Received: (qmail 27528 invoked from network); 26 Feb 1999 12:43:59 -0000 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:43:16 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199902261243.NAA31548@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Bart Schaefer's message of Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:39:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: completion cleanup discussion 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