From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu>
Received: (qmail 3324 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1997 06:47:58 -0000
Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 29 Sep 1997 06:47:57 -0000
Received: (from list@localhost)
	by math.gatech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA21608;
	Mon, 29 Sep 1997 02:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 02:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 08:29:17 +0200
Message-Id: <9709290629.AA08437@gamma.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
In-Reply-To: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:45:53 -0700
Subject: Re:  compctl -Tx 'w[0,...] ...' ...
Resent-Message-ID: <"5Kmve3.0.WH5.ZgqBq"@math>
Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
X-Mailing-List: <zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu> archive/latest/3534
X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu


"Bart Schaefer" wrote:

> 
> What's the difference between
> 
> 	compctl ... -- foo
> 
> and
> 
> 	compctl -Tx 'w[0,foo]' ...
> 
> ??  Aside from the obvious fact that you can use multiple `compctl ...`
> commands but only one `compctl -Tx ...`.
> 
> Take a look at this:
> 
> ...
> 
> The above turns every compctl that doesn't use -x (because -x completions
> can't be nested) into a single huge compctl -T.  (It could probably be
> cleaned up a lot, especially the `stuff' loop for unfolding compctls that
> happen to have embedded newlines e.g. in -k '(...)' lists.)
> 
> With some finagling, it ought to be possible to rewrite all the compctls
> that use -x in a similar manner, eventually reducing the entire collection
> of compctls (except for -C and -D) to one `compctl -T`.
> 
> Now you may be wondering, what's the point of all this?  Well, at first it
> was just a desire to have something like compctl -T but that kicked in only
> after everything else failed.  (You can almost get this with -D, but only
> for commands that don't already have some other completion.)

Hm, using flags before a `-x' or `+' with no flags following it
(continue with default completion) aren't enough? Could I get an
example, please?

> Beyond that,
> though, it suggests that there may be a lot of redundant functionality in
> the completion code, which could without much effort be folded together.
> 

Not that much, only the following lines could be removed:

       else if (linredir ||
                !(cmd &&
                  (((ccp = (Compctlp) compctltab->getnode(compctltab, cmd)) &&
                    (compc = ret = ccp->cc)) ||
                   ((s = dupstring(cmd)) && remlpaths(&s) &&
                    (ccp = (Compctlp) compctltab->getnode(compctltab, s)) &&
                    (compc = ret = ccp->cc)))))

And doing it that way should be faster than the all in one `-T' version.

But I admit that I didn't think of using `-T' with `w[0,...]'...

> Also, if you convert all your compctls to one big -T like that, then you
> can replace 'w[0,string]' with 'W[0,pattern]' and get an effect that a few
> persistent zsh-users have been requesting for some years: pattern matching
> on the command name when defining a completion.
> 

Huh? That wouldn't be that difficult to implement (I think) and I
don't remember a request for it...

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de