From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add API wrapper to ${+_comps[...]}
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:51:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151005215134.GA1959@tarsus.local2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <151003174919.ZM31542@torch.brasslantern.com>
Bart Schaefer wrote on Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 17:49:19 -0700:
> On Sep 30, 6:29pm, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> }
> } I wonder if this is useful enough to be added?
>
> (Why two separate patches both to compsys.yo?)
>
One logical change per commit. I might have erred on the side of
splitting too much, but it's easier to unsplit than to split.)
> I don't see any particular reason not to add it, but I also find
> no existence tests of $_comps[...] anywhere in the contributed
> functions or my own local startup files or functions, so it may
> indeed be only minimally useful.
>
I use them like this in my .zshrc:
# TODO neither of this actually works, since _gnu_generic wants
# --foo=[VALUE] and these have a space instead, but they get 90%
# right and are better than nothing...
_has_completion() { (( $# == 1 )) || return 2; (( $+_comps[$1] )) }
_has_completion howdoi || compdef _gnu_generic howdoi
_has_completion ag || compdef _gnu_generic ag
The idea is to be forward compatible — to only install the _gnu_generic
definition if there isn't an _ag already defined.
> On the other hand there are tests for whether a particular function
> is defined. If that function is destined to be assigned to _comps[x]
> perhaps it would be better to check for _comps[x] already defined
> instead.
_comps[x] being already defined in what sense? I can think of three
meanings: (a) hash key exists; (b) hash key exists and the value has
exists as a key in $functions; (c) same, plus the function is not
a "marked-for-autoload" stub.
The patch implements (a). I think we could leave the patch doing (a)
— that's meaningful, it checks whether 'x <TAB>' has been hooked — and
let callers that care about (b) or (c) implement the extra check (b)
or (c) do it themselves?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-05 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-30 18:29 Daniel Shahaf
2015-10-04 0:49 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-10-05 21:51 ` Daniel Shahaf [this message]
2015-10-05 22:11 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-10-05 22:33 ` Daniel Shahaf
2015-10-05 22:49 ` Bart Schaefer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151005215134.GA1959@tarsus.local2 \
--to=d.s@daniel.shahaf.name \
--cc=schaefer@brasslantern.com \
--cc=zsh-workers@zsh.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).