From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14857 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2000 12:55:21 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 7 Feb 2000 12:55:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 6611 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2000 12:54:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9603 Received: (qmail 6587 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2000 12:54:58 -0000 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 09:54:46 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200002070854.JAA30077@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:35:57 +0000 Subject: Re: _arguments problems Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Feb 4, 10:59am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote (in 9559): > } Subject: Re: _arguments problems > } > } *But* if we do that there wouldn't be a way to get at the options in > } cases like this one (ok, it works with longer options but with short > } ones like these one would have to type the whole option to complete > } it). I'm really not sure if this is a good idea, I could only convince > } myself to build that patch because one can always set the > } prefix-needed style to false for such commands. > } > } I'd like to hear other opinions: does anyone think that this might > } surprise users? Or maybe I'm worrying too much about to special a > } case... > > On Feb 4, 3:18pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote (in 9568): > } Subject: Re: _arguments problems > } > } That's a completely different problem. And since the option-rest specs > } do that I agree that normal rest specs should do the same. > > So ... should we *not* apply 9559 ? [ It's 9560 ] Personally, I'd prefer to not use the first hunk of 9560. But the second one is needed in any case. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de