From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7240 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2000 08:45:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Oct 2000 08:45:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 15363 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2000 08:44:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12975 Received: (qmail 15351 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2000 08:44:33 -0000 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:44:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200010120844.KAA30202@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:41:21 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: all completions Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Oct 11, 2:17pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } > } Here's an improved patch. It gets the string displayed for the > } all-matches special match right (as described in 12936) and it has > } another style, `avoid-completer' (any suggestions for a better > } name?). That gives a list of completer-names for which no all-matches > } string should be added. It has what I think is a sensible default > } value. > > What about completers like _list and _menu? In _all_matches we only have to care about completers that actually generate matches and neither of these do. > What about _ignored? Ah, right, this does. Hm, but when I think about this alternate-set stuff it comes from: doesn't it may make sense to add all the ignored matches? At least than all corrections. I would be in favour of waiting and seeing if someone complains, but I could easily be convinced to change the default. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de