From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4831 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2000 16:42:48 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 19 Jan 2000 16:42:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 10304 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2000 16:42:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9374 Received: (qmail 10297 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2000 16:42:40 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 17:42:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001191642.RAA19840@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Alexandre Duret-Lutz's message of 19 Jan 2000 12:17:37 +0100 Subject: Re: completion after // Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > >>> "Tanaka" == Tanaka Akira writes: > > Tanaka> Sometimes completion after ../ frustrates me. > > [...] > > Along with the same lines, something I don't like is > that the path `a///////b' is not understand as 'a/b' by _path_files > (when I cut and past path names that contains doubled > slashes, it's annoying to not be able to complete after these). > > I wanted to add : > > # Squeeze sequences of slashes > PREFIX="${PREFIX//(\\/)#//}" > SUFFIX="${SUFFIX//(\\/)#//}" > [[ $PREFIX = */ ]] && SUFFIX=${SUFFIX#/} > > at the beginning of _path_files, but then realized that > people may want to use `//' to do partial path completion. > > Should this be tunable ? I fear it will mess up completion inside braces (only if both multiple slashes and braces are used at the same time), but: try it. Using a style for it, of course ;-) When I wrote _path_files I was tempted to disallow in-path completion inside `//' at least when that appears at the beginning, because, if I'm not completely mistaken, there is or once was a Unix version where this had special meaning. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de