From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27566 invoked from network); 24 May 2000 08:07:23 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 May 2000 08:07:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 1464 invoked by alias); 24 May 2000 08:07:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11550 Received: (qmail 1457 invoked from network); 24 May 2000 08:07:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:05:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200005240805.KAA29939@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Oliver Kiddle's message of Tue, 23 May 2000 17:07:47 +0100 Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: _netscape Oliver Kiddle wrote: > ... > > > > Note that _files can no longer complete subdirectories if you give it a > > > -S option which is something other than a slash. _files should only add > > > the suffix after a file (and possible after an empty directory). > > > Sometimes you want it, sometimes not... > > When might you not want it (the slash)? If you don't want to decend > directories, it would be easier to use compadd * than _files. I'd have > thought that in the vast majority of cases, the passed suffix would be > wanted only after a file or empty directory. When completing only directories. > ... > > > The way suffixes are handled has mostly historical reasons and, yes, > > it is a bit simple minded. If someone wants to help to improve it, I'd > > like to have a short and comprehensive list of things one might want > > to do, so that we can discuss it easliy and find the (hopefully few) > > basic things we need for that. With that we could then think about > > changing the code. Ok? (I don't think I'll have much time to think > > about this...) > > I'll try to come up with such a list but it may be a little while before > I have time. Does anyone know of any parts of the completion system > where there is an interesting sitation or currently not very good > handling of suffixes: it might be useful if I investigate a few > different instances first. You have every time you want or need, I don't think we really need to do this before 3.1.7. And, no, off the top of my head I can't think of places where suffix-handling caused that much trouble. Oh, and, btw, when thinking about suffix handling, we should probably also re-think the -R stuff (auto-removal in general). Maybe we find something better, maybe we don't... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de