Re: Completion TODO (was: pws-11)

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

Peter Stephenson wrote:

> Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> > The current state: condition codes, some of them modifying. Saving and 
> > restoring of the special parameters is done automatically on function
> > entry and exit (and nowhere else).
> > The problems are: modifying condition codes are considered a bad thing 
> > and saving/restoring has to be done explicitly.
> 
> I haven't followed what's wrong with having the parameters restored
> automatically unless compstate[restore] is altered.

I was alluding to the restoring inside a function when one has
multiple tests.

> If the modification of the parameters is simply to be removed from [[-style
> tests, then I still think a builtin is the best way of handling it.
> `compset -i 3' ignores three more characters from $PREFIX, or
> whatever.  This could allow tests with side effects, like `compset -I
> <pattern>' to ignore a pattern at the head of $PREFIX if it matches,
> or whatever.  Then you also could have e.g. `compset -n 2 -1', narrow
> to words 2 to -1 (same as shifting words and decrementing CURRENT),
> `compset -N "start_pat" "optional_end_pat"', narrow to the range of
> words between the patterns with the end pattern optional.  If it's
> much more complicated than that, I can't imagine I would use it much.

I had forgotten to include this in the list of suggestions (although,
I think, it was the first suggestion ever made).
The builtin should have a return value usable for `if compset ...; then'
as a `side effect', right?

> I'm not really enthusiastic about more subscripting hieroglyphics.

;-)

Bye
 Sven


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