From: Oliver Kiddle <opk@u.genie.co.uk>
To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk
Subject: Re: Moving completion functions
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:27:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3AB24CFC.27E2083F@u.genie.co.uk> (raw)
Sven wrote:
> - I was wondering if _mere is for the function or for some command I
> don't know...
I assumed it was for the function and judging by the ChangeLog it must be
because in the first mention of _mere it is commited with mere.
> - _mysql_utils should probably keep it's name. I think this was
> modelled after _psutils and _xutils. Those two should then be
> renamed to _ps_utils and _x_utils.
I'm not sure that it should be _ps_utils because the psutils is a single
package of utilities distributed together which has always been called psutils
in one word. _ps_utils might imply that some other unrelated PostScript utility
should go in there also. Keeping it _mysql_utils and renaming to _x_utils is
fine though.
> - _use_lo should get a better name, yes. Hm, I don't like mixing the
> underscore-style we use with hyphens in function names, and anyway I
> prefer _parse_help (or _options_from__help?)
My main reservation about _parse_help is that the function doesn't do the
actual parsing itself, it gets _arguments to do it. That aside, it looks and
sounds better than _options_from__help.
> - We could also change _call to _call_program and _funcall to
> _call_function.
That seems good. The documentation for _call talks about calling a 'command' so
maybe it should be _call_command but program might be clearer.
> - And there could be a better name for _compalso.
I agree but I can't think of anything better.
> - For the label functions (and the tag functions) I think we should
> either leave them or try to find names that are both readable and
> have the sorting behaviour Bart wants (and not only he, I like that,
> too). So...
>
> _tags _tags
> _wanted _tag_wanted
> _requested _tag_requested or _tag_selected
> _all_labels _labels_for
> _next_label _label_selected
>
I like the sorting behaviour too but am not particularly convinced by these.
_tag_requested just seems quite long for something which is used a lot. One
option is removing the 'ed' so we just have _tag_want and _tag_request.
Another option which I think I prefer would be to use something like _want_now
or _wanted_now for _requested which groups it with _wanted while possibly
better expressing the difference with _wanted which you were getting at with
the _tag_selected idea.
I'm not sure about the labels. Anyway, I'm being dragged down the pub so I'll
have to finish this reply next week.
Oliver
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp
next reply other threads:[~2001-03-16 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-16 17:27 Oliver Kiddle [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-03-30 14:00 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-30 15:12 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-29 9:33 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-29 16:49 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-28 14:12 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-28 16:14 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-28 16:20 ` Peter Stephenson
2001-03-26 14:16 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-26 8:53 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-22 21:46 Oliver Kiddle
2001-03-22 21:50 ` Oliver Kiddle
2001-03-23 0:29 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-25 15:26 ` Oliver Kiddle
2001-03-25 20:39 ` Peter Stephenson
2001-03-26 4:33 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-22 10:40 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-22 11:03 ` Peter Stephenson
2001-03-22 17:04 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-21 11:42 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-20 21:32 Oliver Kiddle
2001-03-21 9:58 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-19 9:46 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-22 7:21 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-18 22:20 Oliver Kiddle
2001-03-19 4:36 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-16 10:20 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-18 2:39 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-15 20:50 Oliver Kiddle
2001-03-16 12:09 ` Peter Stephenson
2001-03-17 23:16 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-15 15:46 Oliver Kiddle
2001-03-15 18:14 ` Bart Schaefer
2001-03-15 10:43 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-15 9:30 Sven Wischnowsky
2001-03-15 10:33 ` Peter Stephenson
2001-03-15 17:04 ` 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=3AB24CFC.27E2083F@u.genie.co.uk \
--to=opk@u.genie.co.uk \
--cc=zsh-workers@sunsite.dk \
/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).