From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20328 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2001 19:49:37 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Jun 2001 19:49:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 25921 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2001 19:48:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15173 Received: (qmail 25906 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2001 19:48:44 -0000 Message-Id: <200106281949.PAA16170@aragorn.cortexmachina.com> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: Picky criticism of ls completion list formatting In-Reply-To: Message from Peter Stephenson of "Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:57:42 BST." Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:49:27 -0400 From: Peter Whaite Peter Stephenson said: > "Bart Schaefer" wrote: > > On Jun 28, 12:21pm, Peter Whaite wrote: > > } Subject: Picky criticism of ls completion list formatting > > } > > } Listing completions for 'ls' uses more lines because it formats using > > } one less column. > > > > Try `setopt list_packed'. If that doesn't make a difference, then there > > may be something wrong with the "packing" code that we need to look at. > > list_packed still uses three spaces between columns, it just varies the > column widths. It might be time to make the column spacing configurable. > Presumably that's not too hard. Yes list_packed made a satisfactory difference. OK I see. The (GNU) ls algorithm uses variable column widths separated with 2 spaces, whereas zsh by default uses the same column width for all the columns separated by 3 spaces. List_packed makes the widths variable but still keeps the spacing of 3. Configurable spacing sounds good sometime. I assume 3 was for readability, but 2 or 1 is better to conserve space. TeXish stretch and shrink? --- peta