Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Completion function for bitkeeper?
- X-seq: zsh-users 6763
- From: Danek Duvall <duvall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Completion function for bitkeeper?
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:23:38 -0800
- Cc: Jonas Juselius <jonas@xxxxxx>, zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <9219.1068538977@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mail-followup-to: Danek Duvall <duvall@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Jonas Juselius <jonas@xxxxxx>, zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-users-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <20030523160020.GA9026@xxxxxxxxx> <20030523160155.GA14388@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20031106153225.GA491@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1281.1068232665@athlon> <20031110182013.GA20547@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <9219.1068538977@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> Searching for expl in zshcompsys, it is only used in examples. The one
> exception is in the context of _arguments actions where it isn't just a
> convention (_arguments can't use positional parameters for actions).
And as an action in _arguments is exactly how I'm using the _sccsfiles
function. See my posting from May 23 that includes the _bk script.
I'm not sure what you mean by your parenthetical statement. My action
certainly does have positional parameters passed to it, some of which
are the ones I specify as its arguments in my call to _arguments, some
of which are passed in without my telling them to be.
> I certainly can't see anywhere where it suggests that you can expect
> it to be set by a calling function.
Except by _arguments.
> The two entirely different sets of information system isn't ideal but
> the positional parameters are the most convenient place for passing
> information around.
Then why in $expl in the single case of _arguments?
> For now completion functions should avoid certain compadd options for
> passing other information. zparseopts tends to make it easy enough to
> follow this. If you really want lots of options, follow _arguments and
> have a `-O array' option for passing compadd options.
Hm. I just saw that. So in addition to the documented methods of using
$expl in an action of _arguments to get compadd args and using some of
the positional parameters, there's also the suggested method of passing
them in through -O? What a wealth!
> compadd arguments aren't passed in $expl.
Except from _arguments (not to belabor the point or anything ;-).
Messages sorted by: