From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5936 invoked from network); 30 May 1997 17:12:09 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 30 May 1997 17:12:09 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA09113; Fri, 30 May 1997 13:01:48 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 13:01:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <970530100507.ZM4924@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:05:07 -0700 In-Reply-To: <199705301300.JAA13081@argo.dcrt.nih.gov> Comments: In reply to Anthony Iano-Fletcher "complete-or-expand-prefix" (May 30, 9:00am) References: <199705301300.JAA13081@argo.dcrt.nih.gov> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Anthony Iano-Fletcher , Zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: complete-or-expand-prefix MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"2KK6y2.0.KE2.xVmZp"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3173 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On May 30, 9:00am, Anthony Iano-Fletcher wrote: } Subject: complete-or-expand-prefix } } One of the zle functions 'complete-or-expand-prefix' no longer } works. I've never heard of that one ... are you sure "expand-or-complete-prefix" isn't what you're thinking of? } I added this a while back and used it. After a couple } of job changes I lost it from my zshrc file. So the short story } is that I dont know when it broke but it is (at least for me - } Solaris 2.4 on a Sparc). Can you describe how the behavior changed from before it broke to now? Is it broken in the same ways in 3.0.3-test5 and the latest 3.1? The behavior of expand-or-complete-prefix may have been changed when COMPLETE_IN_WORD was added, or thereabouts ... but I don't recall whether any such change was intentional. } There are 2 options: } 1. I can fix 'complete-or-expand-prefix' (I have a patch) or } 2. delete 'complete-or-expand-prefix' completely. } } I'm happy with either - do we want backward compatibilty? The problem may be that we now have two different definitions of backward compatibility -- all the way back to the original you added, or back to the intermediate versions since COMPLETE_IN_WORD. I'd like to hear more details before trying to figure out which is what. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern