From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12736 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2015 18:55:06 -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: 36300 Received: (qmail 25560 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2015 18:55:05 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AwDAsFmMZFJJpe4tdUoBeFaKF8dL08oTj/N1QN36BS4=; b=Tp8YBmC8gbujxIYn/Ui42QIA1rk/vVYmjxoNRtUl3gXnAfbmYp+nUA5WVd2B6k6plY ImYMv9zQLrQavHZxbNU8Cz2cC1enRbKtSU2J8mGkFZB2E/j771CX4Livd1kA6Lb9uoCl MZGHBGTzds7/iob90DopDPDY1nzYOQdfhMh2DLfERHM5pIssvB86uwxhRcExNueZqJ34 8uCb80+iXQnT3SB3HUpKYycLbCY44mk5s9eA0SJs2G5oxW+mDUvcrKGh91JaDQXYKvEa S4bGpDaktvnJbLf62AH3nd34G1y2/79NzZPP6GS8UM6jV96QNEd+r31Nca3+0pT8qESB dp5w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.147.85 with SMTP id 82mr9851888qht.90.1440701700046; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:55:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <150827094724.ZM1120@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <20150826053928.GD19027@tarsus.local2> <150826111808.ZM30185@torch.brasslantern.com> <150826213532.ZM31157@torch.brasslantern.com> <150826214729.ZM12037@torch.brasslantern.com> <150826221413.ZM25355@torch.brasslantern.com> <150827094724.ZM1120@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:54:59 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Completion of prefix redirections is -command- instead of -redirect- From: Mikael Magnusson To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh workers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Aug 27, 8:22am, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > } Subject: Re: Completion of prefix redirections is -command- instead of -re > } > } When I try this patch, I get all my previous cases right except the > } one you mentioned, but also > } ; < : > } completes files instead of commands now (before, it completed commands > } both with and without the : there, so not more correct in total). > > It thinks ":" IS the command. Hmm, indeed, I'm not sure what I was thinking there, my context is long gone. It is possible that I meant to say "commands instead of files", which is what happens when I test it now. > } PS > } If anyone can get > } for (a b) { > } to complete commands, that would be nice too :). (this never worked) > > I presume you mean without the parens around "a b"? Otherwise it's not > valid syntax. I meant for a (b) {, yeah. > As PWS said, this is really a job for a state machine ... and not for a > hack this close to a release if it's something that hasn't ever worked. Yeah, it was just a PS. -- Mikael Magnusson