From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27701 invoked by alias); 15 May 2011 09:49:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 29295 Received: (qmail 72 invoked from network); 15 May 2011 09:49:05 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.google.com designates 209.85.212.43 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Hsk8B5eE2nFujDf5yyjkoEl+r9+wR1SHQPcg8PJNlzY=; b=FhUXeVf6am3xPa4P5mK6pcYPdvBOODLqrT/QgLevmKBPVTlrexhJTqUKTwpXumc/QY XBjNluOIMVuH7MHFNch8AQYyllS253Kn/f8fmYi4+8A4TMC9XWPz5lMCY2dALH0ZuBEj bOzNtqJzEnzrVPlVCjLJtskSQT5dAlwohU0to= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=PXzyWUNF91sW2nA0UfXJ5g13/oTyaTzVtNwlPK/YiXFCWmPdsTVMRdmMM7xABZ6fOu oTRZzQ/pi8DjfXMaaxtPQHoC38ewNWxcM8dQrKocbkDqTyGXUEgjlOjMf8J5bo6zEM5q S7/FUOMMoY9kQoMETIZ8NwHn1aanRgY47QOqs= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <110514183909.ZM15134@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <20110513191710.657d2f61@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> <20110513195324.6ab90eb2@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> <110513225805.ZM13712@torch.brasslantern.com> <110514183909.ZM15134@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 11:48:59 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PATCH Re: squeeze-slashes false not working? From: Mikael Magnusson To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh workers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 15 May 2011 03:39, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On May 14, 8:31pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > } > } On 14 May 2011 07:58, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } > On May 13, 10:07pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > } > } > } > } With the same and path-files off, it simply behaves as if I had ls > } > } /, ie it completes components in / after the four slashes. > } > > } > You mean path-completion off, but yes. In this case it *should* be > } > happening this way because > > I accidentally left that sentence unfinished: > > ... because by definition path-completion false means not to try to > do any completing between slashes (whether consecutive slashes or > not) unless the cursor is placed there and complete-in-word is set. > This is independent of the setting of squeeze-slashes. > > Given that, does this next thing you said -- > > } So maybe the squeeze-slashes entry should mention something to the > } effect that disabling it will only allow other options to do stuff, > } but maybe nothing will. But in a less stupid way. > > -- still mean anything? Yeah, I sort of guessed the part you left out. What I would want is some sort of hint in the squeeze-slashes description that path-completion also has to be on, and as it turns out, maybe it should mention accept-exact-dirs too. Is the squeeze-slashes setting needed at all though? It seems like changing it or path-completion has exactly the same effect; does enabling squeeze-slashes change some behaviour that disabling path-completion does not change? -- Mikael Magnusson