From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16645 invoked from network); 10 Dec 1999 08:07:55 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 10 Dec 1999 08:07:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 6973 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 1999 08:07:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8991 Received: (qmail 6964 invoked from network); 10 Dec 1999 08:07:46 -0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:07:44 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912100807.JAA19359@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Bart Schaefer's message of Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:06:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Style mechanism discussion Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Peter Stephenson wrote: > > > Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > > Another question is whether we should at least try to group the styles > > > in some sensible way. Probably even using subsections. Opinions? > > > > As long as they've got obvious names, I don't think it matters. Calling > > things e.g. section.foo and section.bar is only better than foo and bar if > > section is really adding to the information, and even in that case it's > > probably easier just to change the name to section_foo and section_bar --- > > I don't think use of different namespaces is really necessary here. Unless > > I've missed the point of this. > > I think Sven is talking entirely about organizing the documentation into > sections, not renaming the styles themselves. That's what I meant. Putting things together that belong together. Like auto-description+format+verbose or the styles that are now used on a per-group or per-match basis. Should also make it easier to document how they are used without repeating it too often. I haven't really tried to categorize them yet, though. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de