From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3258 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2013 16:17:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 31072 Received: (qmail 28015 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2013 16:17:54 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at samsung.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-b7f4c6d0000018de-50-512e31ae2342 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:17:49 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: Zsh workers Subject: Re: completion function name clashes Message-id: <20130227161749.4ca67344@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <20235.1361979450@thecus.kiddle.eu> References: <20235.1361979450@thecus.kiddle.eu> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42I5/e/4Zd11hnqBBitOsFscbH7I5MDoserg B6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujEUzHrMUXOOoOL9tMWsD4wu2LkZODgkBE4m+N7PYIWwxiQv3 1gPFuTiEBJYySrzdfo4dwlnOJPGp/zozSBWLgKrE8mPPwbrZBAwlpm6azQhiiwDF55w4xQpi CwvoShzreQoW5xWwl2jdcRhsA6eAgcTFT+1gtpCAvsTbri9gNfxA9tW/n5ggrrCXmHnlDFSv oMSPyfdYQGxmAS2JzduaWCFseYnNa94yT2AUmIWkbBaSsllIyhYwMq9iFE0tTS4oTkrPNdQr TswtLs1L10vOz93ECAnCLzsYFx+zOsQowMGoxMO74qZOoBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3mQ9vUAh 3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjEwcnFINjEyKjzX2MFu7Pzn8VVD53M1rdh1PCjmeub/IusNS1/Pg mmzDJd7ZMd1u5l+L9/IHp195pdm1rlV0hWn+xkmuMi/ZOs5vTJz7YgXzg04zparrerZrrrpM TX7I5nzcLGyh1x6dIJsMTTGBKQdTpM+en9pg4PhbJPD7eeb5Or/MeM4/XHMq4tfSGUosxRmJ hlrMRcWJAJT+h7sgAgAA On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:37:30 +0100 Oliver Kiddle wrote: > We appear to have two of each of _osc and _ps. > > How should we resolve things for _ps? I would suggest renaming the one > for postscript files to _postscript but for the fact that it is much > older. I don't think renaming it is a problem --- _ps probably makes most command line users think of the command rather postscript. > For the ps command, the _ps is Solaris specific. There's not been > completion for ps before because it is a real mess with BSD and SYSV > having quite different options and many new systems having hybrids. I > also have vague memories that there is more than one ps common on Linux > systems though it appears to be procps everywhere I currently have > access to. Unless anyone tries to fix it, I suppose it can stay associated with Solaris. -- Peter Stephenson Consultant, Software Tel: +44 (0)1223 434724 Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre St John's House, St John's Innovation Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0DS, UK