From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13389 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2000 09:05:10 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 Mar 2000 09:05:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14121 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2000 09:05:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10160 Received: (qmail 14114 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2000 09:05:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:05:00 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200003170905.KAA01669@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Oliver Kiddle's message of Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:03:01 +0000 Subject: Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go Oliver Kiddle wrote: > I added the following to by .zshrc after seeing it in Peter's Zsh Guide > as an example: > > zstyle ':completion:*:functions' ignored-patterns '_*' > > This is often very useful because I don't get functions beginning with > underscores until I've actually typed the underscore. The trouble is > that the correction completer gets to have a go before completion is > tried without the ignored-patterns so for e.g which _co offers me > corrections such as co. Is there any way around this? See 9865. I use something like: zstyle :completion::::: completer _next_tags _expand _complete \ _complete _match _correct \ _approximate _prefix zstyle ':completion:*:complete-2:*' prefer-ignored yes zstyle ':completion:*:(correct|approximate|prefix)-1:*' prefer-ignored yes (Simpler setups can obviously be thought of ;-) All this alternate-set stuff looks like a hack. Initially it was invented for $fignore with compctl, but I really, really think we could do it better now with the completion system. And we should do it better, I think, it probably the most important part of 10134, for me at least. The problem is that if we remove the alternate set stuff for new completion, we'll have trouble re-implementing the behaviour of $fignore, at least when we want it to have the exact same effect. Some more about 10134: after having thought about it some more, I begin to like the suggestion with `tag-order tag=method ...' with the shortcut `tag-order foo'. If I'm not completely mistaken, it would allow us to change the internals, allow much better control and still don't invalidate anyone's setup. I think I'll play a bit with this at the weekend. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de