From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13153 invoked from network); 29 May 1999 08:15:29 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 29 May 1999 08:15:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 9982 invoked by alias); 29 May 1999 08:15:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6366 Received: (qmail 9975 invoked from network); 29 May 1999 08:15:16 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990529081512.ZM27223@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 08:15:12 +0000 In-Reply-To: <199905211318.PAA01688@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: compadd -f with IPREFIX." (May 21, 3:18pm) References: <199905211318.PAA01688@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: compadd -f with IPREFIX. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 21, 3:18pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: compadd -f with IPREFIX. } } Tanaka Akira wrote: } } > Sven Wischnowsky writes: } > > So the question to everyone is: should we change this to make -[rR] } > > work even on automatically added suffixes? } > } > It's consistent and useful, I suppose. } } Yes, maybe. Didn't you say the documentation explicitly says this won't happen? So shouldn't there be some kind of documentation patch to go with the change? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com