Re: completion behaviour (was: zsh-workers: zsh-3.1.5 released)

[Peter Stephenson <pws@ibmth.df.unipi.it>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> We had some discusssion about a new way to define completion behaviour 
> which (seemingly) settled on: let's use shell functions and offer a
> few new builtins. So, if I implement this, do we really want the
> changes to compctl (note: I mean compctl, most of the changes in the
> completion code itself would be used anyway) or should we leave
> compctl alone and offer the new possibilities through the new way to
> define completion behaviour, thereby giving some incentive to switch
> to the new way?

It's hard enough having to keep track of compctl changes without
having to think about doing everything a completely different way.
I'd much prefer everything to be reachable from compctl for the time
being.  I realise it's not necessarily going to look nice, but that
has never really been compctl's aim.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@ibmth.df.unipi.it>       Tel: +39 050 844536
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/
Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarotti 2, 56100 Pisa, Italy