From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4855 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2000 09:43:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 14 Jun 2000 09:43:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 17484 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2000 09:43:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11888 Received: (qmail 17474 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2000 09:43:02 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:21:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200006140621.IAA00961@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:41:38 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: expansion Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Jun 13, 1:24pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } Subject: PATCH: expansion > } > } Note that I've used the same default value in _expand as it has > } elsewhere (`false'), which means that without further configuring, > } this now behaves differently. Should we make it default to `true' in > } _expand? > > If it now behaves by default more like the way the old expand-or-complete > behaved, then I think we should leave it. It is more like e-o-c. So this makes me wonder if the default for the suffix style should be changed (currently its default is like the old _expand, changing it would make it like e-o-c). > Either that or the default > should be different depending on whether _expand was used as a completer > or called from _expand_word ... hrmm ... I'm never too happy with adding differences between a completer and the bindable command for it... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de