Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Compctl completion tweaking
- X-seq: zsh-workers 4188
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Compctl completion tweaking
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:49:21 +0200 (MET DST)
- In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:48:10 -0700
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> I do not advocate changing the current meaning of `+'. I don't think
> we should use a shell option. I'm not very excited about `++' as the
> choice for inclusive-or, though; the compctl syntax is already too
> cryptic (which I suppose might be an argument for not worrying about
> making it more so, but ...).
> It'd be nice to choose something that currently produces an error, so
> as not to co-opt anything from any existing working compctl. (`++' is
> now taken as a command name.)
I would like to agree, but the problem is that there are currently
only few things that produce an error with compctl and I wouldn't like
to use an unused option character for something is behaves more like
`+' (separating option lists) than like an option.
> } Btw: when implementing this, we also could cleanup the code a bit by
> } storing more than just the string to insert for each match, e.g.:
> } - some kind of prefix/suffix and the whole string
> } (this would allow us to make the `-/' flag accept multiple directories)
> I'm confused. You mean make the -W flag accept multiple directories?
Yes, sorry, little confusion in my internal hash tables...
> } - a weight (for sorting the matches as the user wishes, see above)
> Hrm. I'd rather just list the matches in the order they're specified
> in the compctl command, without re-sorting. And similarly, don't sort
> the value of $reply. Just one control flag to say "don't sort" would
> be sufficient, I think.
Maybe I should have been more precise here. I didn't meant that the
user would have to worry about giving weights to the compctl options
(I can't even think of a compctl-syntax for that). What I meant was
that the user may say for different option lists (those separated by
inclusive-or's) that the results of this lists should be sorted
separately. Of course that could be changed to: not sorted at all, and
especially not sorted into the whole list.
The completion code would derive the weights from this automatically.
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by: