From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 699 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 09:43:04 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 09:43:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 22242 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2000 09:42:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9334 Received: (qmail 22234 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 09:42:48 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:08:08 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001180808.JAA22356@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Clint Adams's message of Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:28:38 -0500 Subject: Re: PATCH: _a2ps completion Clint Adams wrote: > I have been informed that a2ps can be just as useful on PostScript > files as any other file, and that *.(#i)(ps|eps) should not be > excluded from completion. Perhaps a context-based switch would > be more appropriate. > ... > -_arguments '*:text file:_files -g \*\~\*.\(\#i\)\(ps\|eps\)' -- \ > +_arguments '*:input file:_files' -- \ I'm against this change. Very much so. At least in this form. There are two acceptable possibilities I can see: - use the patch and suggest (where?) that people who don't want to see the ps files use zstyle ':completion:*::a2ps:*' ignored-patterns '*.(#i)(ps|eps)' or - don't use the patch and document (at the top of _a2ps?) that people who want to complete all files should RTM and use the standard mechanism of the tag-order style: zstyle ':completion:*::a2ps:*' tag-order all-files cause that's what it's there for, dammit. I'm very much in favour of the second suggestion because I guess that only few people want to use a2ps on postscript files and using completion on a prefix where no non-postscript file matches gives one postscript files as matches anyway (that's why we use _files, after all). Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de