From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19515 invoked from network); 1 Sep 1999 10:35:31 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 1 Sep 1999 10:35:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 7552 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 1999 10:35:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7599 Received: (qmail 7545 invoked from network); 1 Sep 1999 10:35:19 -0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: Completion/Cvs/ References: <199909010925.LAA32701@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by AKEMI 1.13.2 - =?ISO-2022-JP?B?Ig==?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQTA0Y0s8GyhCIg==?=) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Tanaka Akira Date: 01 Sep 1999 19:35:17 +0900 In-Reply-To: Sven Wischnowsky's message of "Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:25:47 +0200 (MET DST)" Message-ID: User-Agent: Chao-gnus/6.12.5 AKEMI/1.13.2 (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQTAbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCNGNLPBsoQg==?=) FLAM-DOODLE/1.12.6 (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCM3cbKEI=?= 10R4.0/5.0) Emacs/20.4 (sparc-sun-solaris2.6) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN) In article <199909010925.LAA32701@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de>, Sven Wischnowsky writes: > In this example I think I would like to have it complete `vi' if the > cursor is directly after the `-e' (same word), because the `*::...' > should only take affect on whole words, i.e. in this case the word > after the `-e...'. Why? Since a first non-option argument is the `a', I think the `*::...' should take affect the `-e...' after the `a'. I want to stop completion by _arguments until first non-option argument --- the `a'. So In the example, I want the behaviour that there should be no completion after the `a'. > With that, this is just a special case of a more general problem with > completion after a `-e+:...' option. Currently we use the description > for the first option-argument to complete the next word after the `-e' > only if there really is nothing after the `-e' in the same word (so > that `foo -e ' completes the option-argument and `foo -ebar ' > completes normal arguments). But what if the empty string is a valid > option-argument? I think `-e+::...' should give us that (that's what > the patch below does). I think this is another issue. Even if the empty string is a valid option-argument, getopt does not take the option-argument from the same word because getopt never knows it. In general, it is impossible to parse command line with the rule that enable the empty string option-argument just after (without white space) the option-argument word. So I think it is useless. -- Tanaka Akira