From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27838 invoked from network); 17 Nov 1997 16:55:22 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 Nov 1997 16:55:22 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA03957; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:45:08 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:45:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <971117074522.ZM24165@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:45:22 -0800 In-Reply-To: <199711171354.IAA01254@math.gatech.edu> Comments: In reply to Bruce Stephens "Re: comments in completion" (Nov 17, 1:54pm) References: <199711171354.IAA01254@math.gatech.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: comments in completion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"08vlT1.0.jz.3Q6Sq"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3618 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Nov 17, 1:54pm, Bruce Stephens wrote: } Subject: Re: comments in completion } } A better way to do it might be to extend the programmable completion a bit, } so the function could set both the list of possibilities and a list of } descriptions of them. It wouldn't have to be a list of descriptions; one string would be sufficient. (That's the best you get now with -X anyway.) My point was that you can't *just* extend the -K function. You might have perfectly good completion that doesn't use -K but that needs to compute an explanation string. It'd probably be sufficient to make a variant of -X that applies expansions in the manner of -s. BTW, compctl -s is mentioned in the summary but never explained in the text of the zsh.texi that came with 3.0.5. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com