From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25768 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 21:55:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 21:55:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 14506 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2000 21:55:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9754 Received: (qmail 14499 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 21:55:20 -0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: 3.1.6-dev-18 In-reply-to: "Sven Wischnowsky"'s message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:43:56 +0100." <200002150943.KAA11806@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:58:45 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > I can only repeat... I would have no problems with turning the matcher > style as used by _matcher (or even renaming it for clarity) into one > that is used as an array. The first _matcher would then use the first > string in the value, the second one the second string and so on. I > just thought -- and I may very well be wrong here -- that it would > make users more aware of what they are doing if we use this more > explicit setting we have now. I.e., even with the suggested > array-interpretation of the matcher style one would have to add a new > call to _matcher in the completer list when adding a new string to the > matcher style. Given the last sentence, your way of doing things does make more sense. But I appreciate Andrej's point that the _matcher completer ideally shouldn't be necessary at all, given that there's a style controlling it. If there is some magic which could go in, say, _main_complete to handle this, it would be nice. For example, start with matcher-1, try with that; then retrieve matcher-N, continuing until either you get the same string as before (assumption: there was a * in the matcher column), or you get nothing (assumption: the style's not set at all); plus do some optimisation based on which completers don't use matching at all, to avoid calling completers unnecessarily. On the other discussion, I'm certainly not hung up on providing alternatives to the string context, which I think is pretty usable when you get your mind round it. It's more a question of what the punters think than what I think. By the way, should there be a style that says that old-style completions are to be used? It would avoid the necessity of customizing _default. -- Peter Stephenson