From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13579 invoked from network); 12 Jan 1999 17:40:13 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Jan 1999 17:40:13 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA05289; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:35:29 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:35:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990112093449.ZM12910@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:34:49 -0800 In-Reply-To: <199901111005.LAA20539@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: Latest patched development version" (Jan 11, 11:05am) References: <199901111005.LAA20539@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Latest patched development version MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"mi-pd.0.XI1.XVucs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4892 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu 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 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