Re: 3.1.6-dev-18

[Peter Stephenson <pws@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> Peter Stephenson wrote:
> 
> > zstyle ':completion:*' completer _matcher ....
> > zstyle ':completion:*' matcher blah1 blah2 ...
> 
> This would have a different effect... See 9657 and follow-ups (or the
> docs). It's something like:
> 
>   zstyle ... completer _matcher _complete _matcher _complete ...
>   zstyle ':completion:*:matcher-1:*' matcher blah1
>   zstyle ':completion:*:matcher-2:*' matcher blah2
> 
> If this looks weird to anyone, please join the discussion in 9678,
> 9679 and tell us what you think about what I said in the latter.

It took me a while to work out what you were saying, but I think it's that
while `blah1 blah2' used to be tried one after another when they were
elements of $compmatchers, they get tried all at once if they are elements
of the matcher style in the form I gave it.  If that's correct, I doubt if
that's a major issue for most users --- I suspect that most people who used
more than one element of $compmatchers just had different things in them,
as I did.

Still, how much do you gain by being able to put them in matcher-1 and
matcher-2?  Is that more powerful than just using array elements of the
style in order, rather than simply more cumbersome?  The only examples I
can think of where you gain something are where _matcher is followed the
second time by _prefix instead of _complete (or vice versa), or where some
other element of the context is different between the matcher-1 and
matcher-2 cases.  These seem to me to be to abstruse to be useful.  But I
may well have missed something.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk>