From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23711 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2001 17:28:19 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 16 Mar 2001 17:28:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 11643 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2001 17:28:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13653 Received: (qmail 11631 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2001 17:28:11 -0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked Sender: kiddleo@cav.logica.co.uk Message-ID: <3AB24CFC.27E2083F@u.genie.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:27:24 +0000 From: Oliver Kiddle X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Moving completion functions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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