From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29687 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 11:28:28 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 11:28:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 77 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2001 11:28:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14001 Received: (qmail 64 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 11:28:23 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:28:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200104171128.NAA05617@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: problem with _arguments exclusion lists In-Reply-To: <20010417104405.42259.qmail@web9307.mail.yahoo.com> Oliver Kiddle wrote: > --- Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > > Hrmpf. Yes. This was a bit more complicated to fix because the option > > should still keep itself from being offered as a possible completion > > a > > second time unless it may be given more than once. > > I suspected that it mightn't be too easy when I posted the first > message. The patch seems to fix it but the following still doesn't > work: > _arguments -s '(-conf)-c+:val' '-conf' '-f' > after -c, it completes with the 'val' message so even after -co, it > can't complete -conf. I found these problems with _pine which completes > a number after -c. Maybe there would be a use here for a basic > completion for numbers so that it can know that -co can not be -c with > a parameter. Yes, i was aware of that. The problem is that some programs would not continue parsing `-c...' as a possible option, while some would. I think I would call such programs `well-behaved'. I also seem to remember that we discussed this many months ago, but don't know what we said about all this then. It seems doable to add another option to _arguments telling it that even after such an option other options should be completed. Would that have to include options described as `-c-:...'? Or do we even have to allow specifying that on a per-option basis, i.e. add yet another special character that may be given after the option name to say that there is an argument to be completed directly after the option, but other options might come, too? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de