From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24273 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 19:37:31 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 May 2002 19:37:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 14264 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 19:37:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 17181 Received: (qmail 14249 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 19:37:17 -0000 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:41:44 +0200 Organization: Pleyades To: schaefer@brasslantern.com, raul@pleyades.net Subject: Re: Using the new completion system 'naked' Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Message-ID: <3CE55CF8.mail1N6113ITR@viadomus.com> References: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: nail 9.29 12/10/01 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: DervishD Reply-To: DervishD Sender: DervishD X-Mailer: DervishD TWiSTiNG Mailer Hi Bart, and thanks a lot for answering :) >> - Will the old 'compctl' completion system disabled in the >> future? And if the answer is 'yes', when? >The answers are "maybe, but probably not" and "nobody knows." Well, just as I supposed ;) >> - Can I use the new completion system without compinstall'ing it >> and without compinit'ing it, just by suitably calling compadd, >> compset and compcall (no compdef...)? >Yes, of course you can. The `compinit' system is only one of many that >could be built on top of the compadd etc. builtins. It just happens to >be the best one we've come up with so far. The compinit sistem is very good, but I prefer doing it myself, and BTW I don't really need such a powerful and complicated system. I've tried to read '_arguments', but... well, you know ;) >> Moreover, if the answer is not very large: what advantages gives >> the new completion mechanism over the old one? >Depends on what you mean by "the new completion mechanism." Both 'compinit' system and the new builtins, as your answer suggest. Thanks a lot for all the explanations :))) >If you mean "the `compinit' system" then the answer is very large but >mostly boils down to having more completions available out of the box, For me this is not an advantage, and that's the reason of my question. But I must admit that for new users this is fantastic. All the zsh contributors have done a very well job. >If you mean the compadd/compset/etc. builtins only, plus `zle -C', then >the advantage is meant to be that the syntax is less baroque OK, I was supposing. The syntax of compctl is not easy and sometimes difficult to read, but I find it clearer, shorter and more concise than most of the functions in the 'compinit' system. Just an opinion ¿ok?, I'm not telling that the functions are badly written. >more easily debugged This is true. Debugging of compctl can be very hard... >One might observe that `_arguments' has become nearly as cryptic as >`compctl', but on the other hand it's also doing a lot more work. I tread '_arguments' as some kind of gibberish ;))) I've read it a couple of times (not deeply...) and I don't feel it readable... Well, I'm now pretty informed and more confident to make little completions for compadd 'naked' just for the sake of doing it :) Thanks a lot, you're great, Bart :) Raúl