From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12707 invoked from network); 10 Dec 1999 01:06:52 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 10 Dec 1999 01:06:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 28617 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 1999 01:06:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8989 Received: (qmail 28609 invoked from network); 10 Dec 1999 01:06:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:06:38 -0800 (PST) From: Bart Schaefer Reply-To: Bart Schaefer To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Style mechanism discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Bart Schaefer On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Peter Stephenson wrote: > Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > Another question is whether we should at least try to group the styles > > in some sensible way. Probably even using subsections. Opinions? > > As long as they've got obvious names, I don't think it matters. Calling > things e.g. section.foo and section.bar is only better than foo and bar if > section is really adding to the information, and even in that case it's > probably easier just to change the name to section_foo and section_bar --- > I don't think use of different namespaces is really necessary here. Unless > I've missed the point of this. I think Sven is talking entirely about organizing the documentation into sections, not renaming the styles themselves.