From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10533 invoked from network); 12 Sep 1999 02:20:19 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Sep 1999 02:20:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 5385 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 1999 02:20:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7780 Received: (qmail 5378 invoked from network); 12 Sep 1999 02:20:10 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990912022006.ZM18909@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 02:20:05 +0000 In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to Tanaka Akira "PATCH: _hosts, _hostports, _telnet and _socket" (Sep 12, 9:00am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: _hosts, _hostports, _telnet and _socket MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sep 12, 9:00am, Tanaka Akira wrote: } Subject: PATCH: _hosts, _hostports, _telnet and _socket } } So I extended the format of the variable `hosts' to be able to contain } port numbers and names as: } } hosts=(... host:port ...) This doesn't seem sensible to me at all. What are you supposed to do, repeat every host name for every port to which you might want to telnet? IMO it'd be more useful to leave $hosts as it was and create an AA that maps a host name to a space-separated list of ports -- and then maybe even to have one such AA for each command that accepts a port number, as it's unlikely that one wants to complete the same port numbers for e.g. "pine -f ..." as one does for "telnet". -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com