From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27948 invoked from network); 4 Nov 1998 18:24:38 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Nov 1998 18:24:38 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA27561; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:23:08 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:23:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <981104102003.ZM21491@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:20:03 -0800 In-Reply-To: <9811041635.AA41692@ibmth.df.unipi.it> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: PATCH: completion or'ing and grouping" (Nov 4, 5:35pm) References: <9811041635.AA41692@ibmth.df.unipi.it> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: PATCH: completion or'ing and grouping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"LD_tV3.0.Vk6.Ck9Gs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4540 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Nov 4, 5:35pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: PATCH: completion or'ing and grouping } } .... after I applied patch-match.gz, completion did nothing } whatsoever. After panicking I remembered compctl -T. But according } to my initialisation files, I never had a compctl -T before, and when } zsh started up, compctl -T -q was in effect (why?) If this is } intentional, hadn't that better now be compctl -T -q -tc? Otherwise } we're going to have a very large number of irate users. It can't be right for compctl -T -q to be in effect all the time. That would either make everything act as if autoremoveslash were set, or it would be meaningless because there's no -S along with it. I haven't got caught up on all this stuff yet so I don't know which. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com