From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15103 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2001 07:38:30 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Jul 2001 07:38:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 5742 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2001 07:38:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15426 Received: (qmail 5731 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2001 07:38:23 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:38:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200107200738.JAA09207@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: About the new long/short options changes In-Reply-To: <1010720050115.ZM6144@candle.brasslantern.com> Bart Schaefer wrote: > I mostly like the way it looks in listings, though I wish it would line up > the single-letter options in a column (or else always list the short form > first when there is one, though that might look odd when some of the long > forms have no short form). My only problem with that is that there may be cases where we have more than two matches with the same description, something like: --foo --Foo --fOO -- turn on fooing --long-option -- turn on longing If that gets out of hand... But then I don't know how often this will happen at all. > However, I strongly *dis*like the way it works in menu-selection. So much > so that I'd rather just turn it off entirely if it can't be made to work > better. In particular I don't want selection to consume twice as many > lines (half of which are largely blank) as listing consumes. I find it > better to have listing consume more lines in the first place than to have > the display change so radically when switching from listing to selection. I think you have seen from the discussion that I'm not happy about it, too. One thing we could do is allow users to de-select the long/short form as has been suggested (there is a slight problem with auto-descriptions, btw). The other is to try to implement what you and we prefer anyway: > ... > > What I'd like to see, I think, is something like the following (where `[' > and `]' delimit the menu-selection highlight). For purposes of drawing > a more interesting picure, suppose that the -X option doesn't exist. > > Completing option > [--binary ] -b -- Unix line endings LF > ... > > TAB to the next selection (list now truncated for brevity): > > Completing option > --binary [-b -- Unix line endings LF ] > ... Really that or: --binary [-b] -- Unix line endings LF ? > After three more TABs: > > Completing option > --binary -b -- Unix line endings LF > --change-cygdrive-prefix -c -- cygdrive prefix > [--cygwin-executable -- all files under mountpoint are cygwin e] > ... Same here. I have some ideas how we could achive this, part of the stuff we need is already there. Think of some combination of list-packed, list-rows-first and `dummy' matches that get slots in the listing but show nothing and can't be selected. We'll have to find a way to make this easy to select and handle. I'll think about this at the weekend. What are we coming to... ;-) Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de