From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1097 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 07:10:01 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 07:10:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 29110 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 1999 07:09:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7711 Received: (qmail 29103 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 07:09:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:09:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199909080709.JAA04982@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:58:15 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: more fun with _arguments Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Sep 6, 10:23am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } Subject: PATCH: more fun with _arguments > } > } - add the utility function `funcall' to `compinit' which is a slightly > } better version of the hook-calling function I suggested some time > } ago (should we use a different name?) > > Yes, we should use a different name. I don't have a good one off the top > of my head, but it should be something indicating it's related to the > completion system; I think "funcall" is too generic. ;-) I used this name because I was thinking again about a generalised package system. Then a `comp' prefix would be wrong. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de