From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10903 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2000 15:11:30 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Jan 2000 15:11:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 14643 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2000 15:11:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9460 Received: (qmail 14634 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2000 15:11:25 -0000 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:11:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200001281511.QAA26310@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Alexandre Duret-Lutz's message of 28 Jan 2000 16:04:23 +0100 Subject: Re: PATCH: _diff (new), _prcs (upgrade) Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > ... > > Sven> So the style would only be used to get the command (including: how it > Sven> should be invoked, i.e. with `command' or not) and any options the > Sven> user wants to give to it. If the style is not set we use some standard > Sven> way, so we don't have to set up default styles for this. > > This (your last sentence) assume that no option is used by default (like > the call to ps in _pids). This seems restrictive (but I don't have an > example where options are needed by default, and where the user would want > to change them). Err, either I misunderstand you here, or... options the completion function wants to give would be give to _call, as in the example for diff I had in my last answer (`_call diff -- -v'). The only problem is that this means that such options will always be combined with the ones a user might define in a style. I.e. there are actually two types of options a completion function might give to a command: those that *have* to be there to make it work in the way the function needs it (like the -v for diff) and those the completion functions *suggests* to use -- which may be overridden by a user's style. Ideally, we should support both cases... > >> ... > >> > >> Another point about the $+functions[] test: what if I am writting a > >> completion function for a shell function? say I need to call it, how do I > >> do? > > Sven> Good point. Also testing $+commands and $+builtins might help here, > Sven> but could still be wrong. Hm, I just wanted to make this cleverer but > Sven> since the style would allow one to override it anyway, we should > Sven> probably just call it without any pre-command modifier in the default > Sven> case. Or let _call accept options like -c and -b to say that the > Sven> default should use `command' or `builtin'. > > Given I am writting a _call in a completion function, how do I decide > whether I must use -[bc] or not? We ne a rule here, that should be used > consistently in the completion system (see the first paragraph for what I > suggest). > > And if a rule is chosen, _call can apply it, and therefore -[bc] parameters > may not be needed anymore. I suggested that to enable completion functions to make it as you described in 9453: if we are completing for the command, call it without a `command', otherwise with it. And that can't be decided in _call. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de