From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19958 invoked from network); 15 Dec 1999 20:31:06 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 Dec 1999 20:31:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5406 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 1999 20:30:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9070 Received: (qmail 5399 invoked from network); 15 Dec 1999 20:30:58 -0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: cleanup In-reply-to: "Sven Wischnowsky"'s message of "Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:26:37 +0100." <199912151526.QAA07059@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:31:58 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > - The tag stuff. First of all, I changed the name of the style to > `tag-order' to make it more consistent with `group-order'. I hope > this is ok, or should we rename both to `sort-{groups,tags}'? No, that's fine, I just didn't look round for comparable names. > Then I change the interpretion of the value of the style a bit. For > one, the code will normally add all offered tags as a default. But > you can turn that off by explicitly adding a string consisting of > only a minus sign to the value. This is important, I think, because > it can be quite tedious to always have to list all tags that are > used in particular contexts. Yes, I realised that problem. My first vague ides was to do it the other way around: have a '*' special value which means try any tags supplied at that point. But I think your way is going to be better for most people. > Ok, this should give us maximum flexibility. One of the many > questions is: is `foo()' a nice syntax or are there better ones? It seems quite mnicely mnemonic. -- Peter Stephenson