From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8815 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2000 07:14:56 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 18 Oct 2000 07:14:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 2839 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2000 07:14:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13019 Received: (qmail 2829 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2000 07:14:52 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:14:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200010180714.JAA10770@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Andrej Borsenkow"'s message of Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:32:24 +0400 Subject: Re: paths vs files tags Andrej Borsenkow wrote: > Both are tested in _path_files only and both are used to configure _path_files > behaviour. Are they not redundant? I've been wondering about this, too. Initially I did that to distinguish between styles that affect single components and those that affect whole paths. But maybe we could reasonably change it. And then use `files' or `paths'? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de