Re: More intellegent suffix removing?

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>]

On Jun 10,  5:55pm, Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
} Subject: RE: More intellegent suffix removing?
}
} > The patch would be the thing below (are there any other characters
} > where this would be the right thing?). It looks a bit ugly when this
} > happens after typing a `<' or `>', though.
} 
} Hmm ... as I found recently, at least `<' can quite legitimately be part of
} word (<m-n> globbing).

On Jun 10,  4:02pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: RE: More intellegent suffix removing?
}
} But only if there is also a `>' and the stuff them forms a valid
} number range (and, of course, you must have the right options set).

Yes ... so what?  You can't determine that at the time a suffix is to
be autoremoved.

} I wasn't very happy with the space-removal on redirection operators
} anyway, though. But to make this right, we would need to leave a space 
} if that was added and to replace a slash (if one was added) with a
} space. There is no way to do this easily for now.

I don't want zsh to replace a slash if one was added.  What if what I
intend is to complete a directory and then glob files in that directory
whose names begin with a digit?

I think Andrej's point -- and it's my point, if not his -- is that '<'
should be left out of the list of characters that do suffix autoremoval.
(And therefore probably '>' should be too ... and come to think of it,
even '|' can be part of a glob pattern.)

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com