Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: experimental new style completion

X-seq: zsh-workers 4952
From: Phil Pennock <comet@xxxxxxxx>
To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: experimental new style completion
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:18:58 +0000
In-reply-to: <199901221450.PAA28628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from "Sven Wischnowsky" on Fri 22 Jan 1999 (15:50 +0100)
Mail-followup-to: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Organisation: Organisation? Here? No, over there ---->
References: <199901221450.PAA28628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Typing away merrily, Sven Wischnowsky produced the immortal words:
[...]
> +         eval b\=\( \$\{b:/\*\(${(j:|:)fignore}\)\} \)
[...]
> +         eval c\=\( \$\{c:/\*\(${(j:|:)fignore}\)\} \)

One has to wonder about a shell where /that/ is valid input.

Whilst it's nice and understandable to people who're extensively
familiar, doesn't anyone else think it's time to sit back and try and
look at this syntax objectively?

(At least, almost understandable... oh yeah, understandable)
-- 
--> Phil Pennock ; GAT d- s+:+ a23 C++(++++) UL++++/I+++/S+++/B++/H+$ P++@$
L+++ E-@ W(+) N>++ o !K w--- O>+ M V !PS PE Y+ PGP+ t-- 5++ X+ R !tv b++>+++
DI+ D+ G+ e+ h* r y?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: experimental new style completion
  - From: Bart Schaefer

References:
- Re: experimental new style completion
  - From: Sven Wischnowsky

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author