From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17483 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2001 14:16:56 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 Mar 2001 14:16:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 19153 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2001 14:16:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13731 Received: (qmail 19142 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2001 14:16:47 -0000 Message-ID: To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: new completion modifications In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:07:21 +0100." <200103231407.PAA07685@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 14:16:20 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson Sven wrote: > This seems reasonable. Question to everyone (and -workers in > particular): should we add a `urls' style, comparable to `hosts' and > such, that just gives a bunch of strings to complete as urls? > Probably taking precedence over the other things (different from > `hosts' and friends). Something like this. I don't know if it's going to be a problem with it always taking precedence, however; one of these simple ones can then mask any of the other sort if you just type a fairly generic prefix. But maybe it works OK in practice. If they used different tags, you could used `_next_tags' to get round this. (Does anyone else use _next_tags?) -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer CSR Ltd., Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070