From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28124 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 14:27:45 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 14:27:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 18464 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2001 14:27:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14116 Received: (qmail 18442 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 14:27:36 -0000 Sender: kiddleo Message-ID: <3AE83054.3BE06044@u.genie.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:27:32 +0100 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: Another keep-prefix problem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > I won't commit this before I get positive replies and answers to the > question if we then should add another possible value for the > keep-prefix style for this new behaviour or if that's not needed (I As seems to be the consensus, I don't think we need another value for keep-prefix for this. This is more than likely nothing to do with the latest patch but when I tried testing all this, things didn't work as I'd like or expect. For _expand I use the glob 1, substitute 1, suffix 1, accept-exact false and tag-order all-expansions styles. keep-prefix changed is the default so that too. To test I did: c1=/home c3=cvs Now, cd $c1/kiddleo/$c3/ expands both $c1 and $c3 which I don't want. Having typed the / after $c3, I expect it to complete subdirectories in my ~/cvs and not do expansion. Okay, so I tried setting keep-prefix to 1 and things start working nicely. Except what is going on here (where I mix globs with variables): cd /home/kiddle?/$c3/ results in: cd /home/kiddle?/$c3//home/kiddleo/cvs/ this definitely isn't right. So in what situations is the changed value of keep-prefix useful for? It sounds something like subst-globs-only from the docs. I can't remember why I used it and not a value of 1. Actually, talking of the docs for styles, the section on tag-order is messed up and seems to have the same example twice. Oliver