From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22886 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 16:43:44 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 29 Apr 1999 16:43:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 12203 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 1999 16:43:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6159 Received: (qmail 12196 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 16:43:27 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990429094257.ZM8612@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:42:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <199904290905.LAA19906@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: completion in vared" (Apr 29, 11:05am) References: <199904290905.LAA19906@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: completion in vared MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 29, 11:05am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: completion in vared } } Sidenote: The code uses a mask to say which of the special completion } parameters should be set or unset. With compstate[vared] we } have reached 32. If anyone comes up with an idea for another } key, I'll have to re-write a bit more of the code (seven } bits can be freed, after that I would have to change even } more). If there are more than 32 special completion parameters, I think we've failed in our goal to make the whole system easier to understand. By the way, if we're reasonably confident that we've now identified all the compctl-isms that it's useful to put into compadd/gen/etc., I think we should seriously look at rewriting the option parsing for those new commands to abandon the compctl syntax. Part of the reason for creating the new system was because compctl was so hard to comprehend; we've made the new system a lot more powerful, but made little progress on making it easy to understand. So far we've mostly taken the confusing compctl stuff, stick new command names in front of it, and wrap it in confusing shell-script stuff. Yes, I'm exaggerating a little, but you can't really say the flow of control is obvious through the current set of completion functions. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com