From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20030 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1999 15:58:35 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 7 Sep 1999 15:58:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 6782 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 1999 15:58:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7694 Received: (qmail 6774 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1999 15:58:21 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990907155816.ZM32101@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:58:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: <199909060823.KAA29384@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "PATCH: more fun with _arguments" (Sep 6, 10:23am) References: <199909060823.KAA29384@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: more fun with _arguments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sep 6, 10:23am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: PATCH: more fun with _arguments } } - add the utility function `funcall' to `compinit' which is a slightly } better version of the hook-calling function I suggested some time } ago (should we use a different name?) Yes, we should use a different name. I don't have a good one off the top of my head, but it should be something indicating it's related to the completion system; I think "funcall" is too generic. } -- the syntax is probably a bit too ugly, even for my standards. Chuckle. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com