Re: PATCH: matching in the new completion system

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 26,  3:39pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: matching in the new completion system
}
} All this is a bit like saying `hey, compadd, this is the list of
} strings I'm working on (the array) and here are the parts of the
} strings you should try to match (the words), modify the list for me'.

I thought I was following this, until I got to (the words).  Could you
please give an example?

} So, what do you think? Is this worth including? Should we continue to
} search for a better way? Any suggestions?

A mostly-unrelated one:  Now that you have the addmatches() parameters
broken out into a struct, could you attach a comment to each line to
explain what the field represents?

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com