From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-7689-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.auc.dk>
Received: (qmail 15640 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1999 11:51:24 -0000
Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 7 Sep 1999 11:51:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 10477 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 1999 11:51:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 7689
Received: (qmail 10470 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1999 11:51:14 -0000
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:51:04 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199909071151.NAA04195@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk
In-reply-to: Sven Wischnowsky's message of Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:22:08 +0200 (MET
	DST)
Subject: Re: PATCH: Completion/User/_cvs again.


I wrote:

> Tanaka Akira wrote:
> 
> > I think the style of `_rpm' is useful for state machines. But it
> > cannot represent function call. And `_cvs' has such functions.
> > 
> > For example, `_cvs_extract_directory_entries' is called from
> > `_cvs_setup_allentries', `_cvs_setup_direntries' and
> > `_cvs_setup_modentries'. And it should return to its caller.
> > This is hard to implement in state machine style, I think.
> 
> Ah, I see. Sorry.
> 
> Yes, adding a heap of extra states a la `extract_file_or_directory_entry'
> is ugly.
> 
> Hm, some form of `case' that executes all matching branches would be
> useful here.
> 
> (Yes, I know that one can do that e.g. with a `case' in a loop where
> the case branches remove substrings from the `state' name, but that
> isn't exactly a nice solution, either.)

I always forget things...

Of course, one can also do (in file `_foo'):

  #compdef foo

  local state lstate ret=1

  if (( $# )); then
    state="$1"
  else
    _arguments '...:->bar' ... && ret=0
  fi

  while [[ -n "$state" ]]; do
    lstate="$state"
    state=''
    case "$lstate" in
    bar)
      # include completions for state `baz' and `foobar'
      _foo baz && ret=0
      _foo foobar && ret=0  # this could also be `state=foobar'
      ;;
    baz) ... ;;
    foobar) ...;;
    esac
  done

  return ret


Don't know if that is cleaner than your solution, though.

Bye
 Sven


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