From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 996 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2000 08:13:26 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 5 Oct 2000 08:13:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 10793 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2000 08:13:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12893 Received: (qmail 10786 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2000 08:13:04 -0000 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:13:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200010050813.KAA12647@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:57:16 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: _expand, _expand_word, and their doc Bart Schaefer wrote: > ... > > Then, there was a completely inaccurate remark about the expansions and > all-expansions tags in the doc: They're *not* available when using the > completions style with _expand. If that's a bug in _expand rather than > in the doc, I can't immediately see how to fix it ... so I changed the > doc, and maybe Sven will do something to _expand when he returns. I stumbled over this, too, when reading the manual while I was away. I don't see a way to implement such a behaviour (i.e. I'm pretty sure it isn't possible currently). So, Bart's changes, both in the docs and in _expand(|_word) are fine. But of course I may start to think if this could be implemented -- if I find a not-too-complicated way for changing the C-code... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de