From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20304 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 12:04:21 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 12:04:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 12540 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2001 12:04:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13871 Received: (qmail 12528 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 12:04:13 -0000 Message-ID: <20010402120413.85593.qmail@web9304.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:04:13 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Oliver=20Kiddle?= Subject: Re: Two missing completion functions that bug me To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk In-Reply-To: <200104020915.LAA04501@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > with states. Maybe _arguments needs some way to describe whether or > not > > options can intervene between an option and its argument. > > Yes, I was beginning to think the same. Would it be enough to make > my > other patch optional (i.e. adding a option to _arguments to select > either that behaviour or to de-select it)? Which should be the > default? That sounds reasonable. I think the current behaviour (without your other patch) should be the default because I think it is more common but I'm not particularly bothered. > If I understand you correctly... I said in one of my previous > messages > that _arguments can do that. Do we have to disallow it? I'd prefer Having just worked out how _arguments currently handles the situation, I'd happy for it to be kept it as it is. It works in the most sensible way which is possibly useful for some commands and not too harmful for others. Oliver ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie