From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23520 invoked from network); 2 Nov 1998 11:06:04 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 Nov 1998 11:06:04 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA12319; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:55:08 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:55:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <9811021039.AA42030@ibmth.df.unipi.it> To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: completion behaviour (was: zsh-workers: zsh-3.1.5 released) In-Reply-To: "Sven Wischnowsky"'s message of "Mon, 02 Nov 1998 11:36:33 NFT." <199811021036.LAA22116@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 11:39:40 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Resent-Message-ID: <"AX9UU1.0.Q03.B-OFs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4496 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu 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 Tel: +39 050 844536 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarotti 2, 56100 Pisa, Italy