From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24721 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2001 10:57:16 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 Jul 2001 10:57:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 1138 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2001 10:57:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15456 Received: (qmail 1108 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2001 10:57:06 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:56:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200107231056.MAA12587@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Generating completion functions from XML In-Reply-To: Andrej Borsenkow wrote: > ... > > I really wish we had different notation for equivalent flags. Exclusion > lists at this point are already overloaded and loko ugly (most important, > tgey force us to repeat the whole line). Consider > > -b, --binary > -t, --text > > where two lines are obviously incompatible. You can't write it using brace > notation; you need *four* lines! like > > (-b --binary -t)--text... > (-b --binary --text)-t... > > O.K. it could be shrtened to two lines but then quoting becomes unnatural > and too error prone. In this case '(-b --binary -t --text)'-{-{text,binary},b,t}'...' would work. Remember, an option without the `*' flag is mutually exclusive to itself (internally it really just gets added to its exclusion list, so one could just add it by hand). Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de