From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8575 invoked from network); 4 Nov 1999 17:46:53 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Nov 1999 17:46:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 6422 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 1999 17:46:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8544 Received: (qmail 6415 invoked from network); 4 Nov 1999 17:46:40 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <991104174626.ZM26178@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:46:26 +0000 In-Reply-To: <199911041350.OAA01369@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: completion grouping" (Nov 4, 2:50pm) References: <199911041350.OAA01369@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: completion grouping MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Nov 4, 2:50pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: completion grouping } } (I'm beginning to think that maybe everyone should apply 8520 and 8533 } even though I said otherwise in 8520 -- it's probably easier to } build/change that than to keep different versions alive.) Has anybody else been feeling a bit like Dr. Frankenstein lately? I think everyone should go ahead and apply 8520 and 8533. However: } After having a look at the keys as listed in the compsys doc, I'm back } again at the idea to combine configuration definitions and tag } definitions -- but this time the other way round. There are only very } few config keys for which it is really completely unnecessary to let } user define them per-command. To rephrase to be sure I understand: Much of what's in the compconfig AA controls behavior that could reasonably be expected to differ depending on the command or context for which completion is being performed. Although I don't disagree with this assessment, perhaps it's time to take a deep breath and look again at the usability of the whole system. How many users are going to expend the effort to alter their compconfig even once, let alone multiple times? I've certainly made few changes myself. Didn't we originally set out to make it easier for mere mortals to create their own completions, on the premise that writing a shell function was easier than using compctl -x syntax? Now instead we seem to be attempting to write all the completion functions in advance, to cover every possible behavior, and provide configuration keys (which are often every bit as complex as the old -x syntax) to select among those behaviors. We've made a huge step forward in power and maybe expressiveness, but I'm beginning to think we've only gone sideways on usability. The main advantage of the new system is that it's more, well, complete, so that an average user probably no longer needs to define any new functions at all. Which is not necessarily a bad thing ... but it means that putting further effort into detailed adjustments has diminishing returns, as it's going to be less and less likely that anyone bothers to understand it. And wouldn't it be nice to have this all stabilize sometime soon, so PWS can do a non-beta 3.2-or-4.0-or-whatever release? We're now just 48 days from the three-year anniversary of zsh-3.1.0! I'm not trying to discourage any of the stuff that Sven has suggested; but when answering his questions, let's try to look at it from slightly farther away, in terms of not just what it's expressing, but how likely it is that a non-programmer is going to be able to do anything useful with it. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com