From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11406 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2000 12:53:13 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Jul 2000 12:53:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 13991 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2000 12:53:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12159 Received: (qmail 13984 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2000 12:53:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 14:52:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200007041252.OAA09297@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Andrej Borsenkow"'s message of Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:32:10 +0400 Subject: Re: Is complist really optional? Andrej Borsenkow wrote: > I wonder, should not we load complist by default? It started as > experimental once, but now almost all bells and whistles of new > completion interface is based on it. I don't care much, but saying that `almost all...' are based on complist is a bit much, don't you think? > Or simply merge complist with the > rest of completion code. Do you mean to put it into the complete module? I /think/ there would be people against it... And currently it *is* quite cleanly separated. One can do without complist, one can use it with new and with old completion... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de