From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4195 invoked from network); 23 May 2001 18:18:48 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 May 2001 18:18:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 22949 invoked by alias); 23 May 2001 18:18:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14462 Received: (qmail 22906 invoked from network); 23 May 2001 18:18:34 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:18:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Wayne Davison X-X-Sender: To: Sven Wischnowsky Cc: Subject: Re: vi editting troubles In-Reply-To: <200105230708.JAA21752@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 23 May 2001, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > Repeating everything in every function is just too ugly. > Putting it into the C-code is the opposite of what I wanted to achieve -- > and I want to try to keep the basic C-code independent of the way the > completion system shell code is written. An off-the-cuff suggestion: Would it be possible to have the C code call a "set completion defaults" shell function, store these default values, and then automatically restore them before any call out to the completion system? Would that accomplish your desired goal of keeping the C-code independent? ..wayne..