From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17476 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 09:44:04 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 09:44:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 14595 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2000 09:43:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9735 Received: (qmail 14586 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 09:43:57 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:43:56 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200002150943.KAA11806@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Peter Stephenson's message of Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:10:49 +0000 Subject: Re: 3.1.6-dev-18 Peter Stephenson wrote: > ... > > It took me a while to work out what you were saying, but I think it's that > while `blah1 blah2' used to be tried one after another when they were > elements of $compmatchers, they get tried all at once if they are elements > of the matcher style in the form I gave it. If that's correct, I doubt if > that's a major issue for most users --- I suspect that most people who used > more than one element of $compmatchers just had different things in them, > as I did. Hopefully, giving the same string more than once wouldn't make sense. > Still, how much do you gain by being able to put them in matcher-1 and > matcher-2? Is that more powerful than just using array elements of the > style in order, rather than simply more cumbersome? The only examples I > can think of where you gain something are where _matcher is followed the > second time by _prefix instead of _complete (or vice versa), or where some > other element of the context is different between the matcher-1 and > matcher-2 cases. These seem to me to be to abstruse to be useful. But I > may well have missed something. I can only repeat... I would have no problems with turning the matcher style as used by _matcher (or even renaming it for clarity) into one that is used as an array. The first _matcher would then use the first string in the value, the second one the second string and so on. I just thought -- and I may very well be wrong here -- that it would make users more aware of what they are doing if we use this more explicit setting we have now. I.e., even with the suggested array-interpretation of the matcher style one would have to add a new call to _matcher in the completer list when adding a new string to the matcher style. Hm. If anyone now says: change it, I will (renaming the style so that it doesn't look like the matcher style used for tags -- which is looked up as a string). Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de