From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1522 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2000 07:12:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Oct 2000 07:12:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 15041 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2000 07:12:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13077 Received: (qmail 15034 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2000 07:12:15 -0000 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:12:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200010250712.JAA23765@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "E. Jay Berkenbilt"'s message of Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:00:58 -0400 Subject: Re: still confused about completion and matching E. Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > ... > > The most recent change to _match seems to cause it to revert to menu > completion in many cases. If I just completely remove lines 56 and 57 > (dealing with unambiguous_cursor) then all my test cases work just the > way I want them to. To Bart and Andrej: the lines Jay is referring to are: + [[ $compstate[unambiguous_cursor] -gt $#compstate[unambiguous] ]] && + ins=yes compstate[insert]="$ocsi" compstate[pattern_insert]="$ocspi" These are new and don't have anything to do with the insert-unambiguous style. > The only thing I lose is earlier expansion in > some cases, but the result doesn't change the behavior or the amount > of typing required. And this is exactly what they were supposed to achieve. Inserting the right expansions a bit earlier. The test is a bit weird, I admit, but worked for the cases I tested, but probably not for other cases, so I have don't have any problems whatsoever with removing them (or later trying to come up with a better test. > ... > > Would the > next step be committing these changes and waiting for fallout? :-) I'd like to ask what the other people around here think about it. Without setting one of the new styles, the patch should only have one visible effect: allowing to complete paths with multiple pattern- containing components. Should we give it a try? Has anyone else tried it yet? (Andrej? I /think/ you once asked for this multi-component-pattern completion.) Andrej Borsenkow wrote: > > insert-unambiguous > > This is used by the _match and _approximate completer functions, > > where the possible completions may not have a common prefix so > > that menu completion is often the most useful may of choosing > > completions. If the style is set to `true', the completer will > > start menu completion only if no unambiguous string could be > > generated that is at least as long as the original string typed by > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > the user. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > That is the problem. It means, that if you have long pattern that results in > short match, menu completion is started. > > I was never happy about it as well. But I switched to menu selection some time > ago :-) Any suggestions about making this more clever or the results more intuitive are welcome ;-) As I sais in one of the previous mails, I wasn't completely happy with that condition myself. The problem is that we certainly don't want to insert the unambiguous string unconditionally even if insert-unambig is set, because that string might often be empty. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de