From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25955 invoked from network); 24 Aug 1999 10:43:49 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 Aug 1999 10:43:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 17053 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 1999 10:43:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7471 Received: (qmail 17046 invoked from network); 24 Aug 1999 10:43:38 -0000 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:43:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199908241043.MAA09262@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Tanaka Akira's message of 24 Aug 1999 19:04:43 +0900 Subject: Re: PATCH: completion Tanaka Akira wrote: > But I feel X toolkit options specs in _xterm is bit redundant. > I think _xt_arguments such as following is useful. > > # Since XrmParseCommand does not accept short options, it should not > # use "-s". > > _xt_arguments () { > _arguments \ > '-geometry:geometry:_x_geometry' \ > '-display:display:_x_display' \ > ... > '-xrm:X resources:' \ > "$@" > } Hey, that's good, I didn't think about adding such files -- we could use that to replace `_x_options', too (with `_x_arguments', which could probably still be a pattern function). > # _gtk_arguments may be also useful. > > Where is a suitable directory to store this? > > Completion/User or Completion/Base (or Completion/X)? Now that I've added `Pbmplus', I'd vote for `Completion/X' (and later `Completion/Gnu', etc.). We'll have to move some things around when we come to the next open release anyway... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de