From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2817 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2000 08:28:20 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Apr 2000 08:28:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 25084 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2000 08:28:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10637 Received: (qmail 25076 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2000 08:28:10 -0000 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:28:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200004110828.KAA03835@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Andrej Borsenkow"'s message of Tue, 11 Apr 2000 12:14:25 +0400 Subject: RE: PATCH: Re: 3.1.6-dev-22 Andrej Borsenkow wrote: > ... > > I always forgot it ... to clean up before release. > > The decsription of compstate[insert] : > > ... > On exit it may be set to any of the values above (where > setting it to the empty string is the same as unsetting it), > or to a number, in which case the match whose number is given > will be inserted into the command line. It may also be set > to a string of the form `GROUP:MATCH' which specifies a match > from a group of matches to be inserted, counting from 1 > upwards (e.g. `2:4' specifies the fourth match of the second > group). Negative numbers count backward from the last match > ... etc and the next paragraph > > Now, either I'm completely blind, or this is the _only_ place where > "number of group" is mentioned. This was there for a long time; I > presume, originally it was for sorted/unsorted matches - but > > - either it should be described, where these group numbers come from > - or, better yet, the name of group should be used. We have six name spaces for group names. The whole thing comes from a time when we were thinking about ways to get information about the matches already added. Then I was thinking about using it for the stuff that is now done with _next_tags. I didn't expect so much consistency and control in the shell code then. So, I would like to make the question: should we remove it? I would only comment it out in the C-code just in case we get a way to access matches added some day (not for a long time, I think). Actually, I was already tempted to remove it more than once and I don't think it would cause much harm (or any at all) -- noone has written another example completion system and the one we have doesn't use this feature. Comments? Opinions? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de