Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Mar 21, 11:00am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> } Subject: Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go
> }
> } Bart Schaefer wrote:
> } 
> } > }   zstyle ... tag-order foo=files bar=files
> } > }   zstyle '...:foo' file-patterns '*.ps'
> } > 
> } > Presumably the '...' part in both of those lines is, in many cases,
> } > going to be the same.  And then you need to repeat it _again_ to give
> } > the patterns for `bar'.
> } 
> } Just occured to me: people don't need to repeat the patterns, of
> } course, as long as they use their own little naming convention for the 
> } tags they invent:
> } 
> }   zstyle ... tag-order --foo=files --bar=files
> }   zstyle '*-foo' ignored-patterns '*.ps'
> 
> But people arent' going to invent their own tags all that often, are they?
> Tags right now are pretty much predetermined by the completion functions
> that use them, e.g. the way _files uses globbed-files.  Hmm ... is that
> changed by what you're working on now?

Yes, and that's what the original example above was about -- the
`user' `invented' the tag names `foo' and `bar', linking them to the
`method' `files'. And before that I made the suggestion to allow the
file-patterns style to contain invented tag names.

> } > I find myself wishing for some way to merge
> } > them, maybe something like
> } > 
> } >     zstyle ... tag-order foo=files bar=files \
> } > 	    + foo file-patterns '*.ps' \
> } > 	    + bar file-patterns '*.pdf'
> } > 
> } > That specific example would make the word `+' magic, which might not be
> } > a good idea ... but we're running out of metacharacters that don't need
> } > to be annoyingly quoted.
> 
> Speaking of "just occured to me":
> 
>     function zstyle() {

I had played with the idea to first try it with a function, too ;-)

> ...
> 		    shift "i > $# ? $# : i"  # Stupid shift error on i > $#

Yes! It's annoying, isn't it? I was tempted more than one to change
it. Or maybe add an option to make it be quiet... unfortunately `shift -q' 
has always been interpreted as `shift -$q'. Sigh.


Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de