From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9061 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2000 19:07:24 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 14 Feb 2000 19:07:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 10413 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2000 19:07:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9728 Received: (qmail 10406 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2000 19:07:18 -0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: 3.1.6-dev-18 In-reply-to: "Sven Wischnowsky"'s message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:38:20 +0100." <200002140938.KAA08906@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:10:49 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: 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