From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: Latest patched development version
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:34:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <990112093449.ZM12910@candle.brasslantern.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199901111005.LAA20539@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
On Jan 11, 11:05am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: Latest patched development version
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} > Is there any reason that -tc simply can't be implicit?
}
} I wanted to leave the previous behavior unchanged as much as
} possible. The `-T' is the only case where multiple compctl's were
} tested in all other cases making -t<whatever> implicit would make
} things differ from the way it was before my patches.
So that's the reason -tc *isn't* implicit, but nobody's yet said why
it *can't* or shouldn't be.
IMHO,
* There aren't very many cases of the previous behavior (other than -T)
where another suitable completion would be found.
* Therefore, making -tc the default wouldn't affect anyone's existing
completions very much, if at all.
* Even there were another suitable completion, the -tc behavior is
probably the more desirable one.
} Anyway before I change anything I would like to hear a bit more what
} people would like to have, ok?
Of course.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-01-12 17:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-01-11 10:05 Sven Wischnowsky
1999-01-12 17:34 ` Bart Schaefer [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1999-01-21 9:42 Sven Wischnowsky
1998-12-15 14:57 Sven Wischnowsky
1999-01-11 2:38 ` Bart Schaefer
1998-12-15 11:59 Sven Wischnowsky
1998-12-15 13:05 ` Peter Stephenson
1998-12-15 14:03 ` Bruce Stephens
1998-12-15 14:44 ` Bruce Stephens
1998-12-14 13:57 Peter Stephenson
1998-12-14 17:05 ` Bruce Stephens
1998-12-14 17:27 ` Peter Stephenson
1998-12-14 17:31 ` Bruce Stephens
1998-12-14 18:54 ` Phil Pennock
1998-12-14 20:13 ` Bart Schaefer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=990112093449.ZM12910@candle.brasslantern.com \
--to=schaefer@brasslantern.com \
--cc=zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).