From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10210 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2000 20:59:29 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 Jul 2000 20:59:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 16526 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2000 20:59:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12357 Received: (qmail 16519 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2000 20:59:24 -0000 To: Zsh workers Subject: Re: PATCH: _mh where path is not the default In-reply-to: "Oliver Kiddle"'s message of "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:28:30 BST." <397C98DE.173E587F@u.genie.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:59:22 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: Oliver Kiddle wrote: > Are the completions written for nmh or mh? I'm using nmh so are there > any problems I should expect? They were written for mh, so you should expect completions for certain functions to be missing, in particular mhcomp, mhlist etc. As these take standard MH arguments it should be simply a case of adding them to the list of commands handled by _mh, but some sort of sanity checking should be done if you do that. I just tried by hand with `compdef _mh mhlist' and it looked OK. -- Peter Stephenson Work: pws@CambridgeSiliconRadio.com Web: http://www.pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk