From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15856 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2000 14:27:15 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 Feb 2000 14:27:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 27439 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2000 14:27:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9530 Received: (qmail 27431 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2000 14:27:10 -0000 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:27:05 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200002021427.PAA11230@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Sven Wischnowsky's message of Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:21:17 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: _call (was: Re: PATCH: _diff (new), _prcs (upgrade)) I forgot to say: > ... > > Maybe we should only think about `ways to get certain informations' > instead of `parameterizing commands'. Of course this also means that this may not be restricted to commands we currently call with $(...). Hm. Sounds interesting, I think, but leaves us with the problem of finding the places where this would be worthwhile to make it configurable without turning all completion functions into collections of calls to _call. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de