From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22842 invoked from network); 28 Apr 1999 04:38:50 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Apr 1999 04:38:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 15516 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 1999 04:38:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6127 Received: (qmail 15509 invoked from network); 28 Apr 1999 04:38:05 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990427213759.ZM29782@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:37:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <199904261339.PAA08495@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: PATCH: matching in the new completion system" (Apr 26, 3:39pm) References: <199904261339.PAA08495@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: matching in the new completion system MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 26, 3:39pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: PATCH: matching in the new completion system } } All this is a bit like saying `hey, compadd, this is the list of } strings I'm working on (the array) and here are the parts of the } strings you should try to match (the words), modify the list for me'. I thought I was following this, until I got to (the words). Could you please give an example? } So, what do you think? Is this worth including? Should we continue to } search for a better way? Any suggestions? A mostly-unrelated one: Now that you have the addmatches() parameters broken out into a struct, could you attach a comment to each line to explain what the field represents? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com