Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: PATCH: completion
- X-seq: zsh-workers 8440
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: PATCH: completion
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:42:32 +0200 (MET DST)
- In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:17:16 +0000
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Which also means "compiled in to static builds". Did you try a static
> build? I guess I'll find out soon enough.
I tried it with a fully dynamic shell and a dynamic-enabled shell but
with `complete' linked in and then once with `compctl' loaded
dynamically and once with `compctl' linked in.
> } - Since this was asked by Bart: yes, I made `functions' show disabled
> } functions, too. I think this is right because `functions' should
> } show the contents of the functions hash table.
> I don't think I agree with this. The purpose of "functions" is not just
> to dump the hash table; it's for user information. If a function has
> been disabled for some reason, it shouldn't be shown: "disable" is among
> other things a sysadmin tool for concealing things that certain users
> should not see.
> Which, incidentally, makes me think of something I hadn't before: If a
> sysadmin wanted to prevent users from changing the completion setup in
> the old system, he could simply "disable compctl" in /etc/zshenv. Now,
> there's no way to lock in a fixed set of completion functions.
> Do we need to be able to mark functions read-only, as can be done with
Interesting, hadn't thought about that...
> } However, the way they
> } are currently represented (with the `<disabled>' prefix) is not nice
> } and I'd like to hear if anyone can think of something better.
> "Not nice" doesn't even begin to cover it: `eval "$(functions myfunc)"'
> might read from a file named "disabled" and write it to "myfunc"!
No, the output of `functions' isn't changed (of course).
> } Maybe we should just add a `disabled' parameter containing all
> } disabled functions, aliases, etc.
> Can't do that without disambiguating somehow -- you could have an alias,
> a function and a command all named "foo" all of which are disabled.
> However, this is probably the best way to go.
That's why I also suggested splitting them into pairs: `functions' and
`disabledfunctions' (or `disfunctions' or something like that).
I already came to the conclusion that this is probably the way to
go. It will also make some completion functions simpler.
> } - For the `userdirs' parameter I move the fast YP/NIS code into
> } `hashtable.c' (where the fill-table-function used `getpwent()').
> There was already too much stuff in hashtable.c, IMO ... it'd be nice
> to have one file that is the hash table implementation, and one or more
> others that create each of the hash table instances.
Right. It irritated me a lot when I found such code in that file.
> I don't think it's "too late," but I don't have a strong opinion either
> way on whether to add a prefix. Given that they're all now "hidden" by
> default, so that they won't conflict with locals declared in e.g. ksh
> functions, I don't think it's as big a deal, and the consistency with
> e.g. $signals (for which it _is_ too late) is nice.
> On the other hand, reducing collisions is probably a good thing too.
;-) Don't go to the elves for advice...
> } If you load the parameter module in your `.zshrc', you'll notice that
> } `compinit' now loads `parameter' and `zleparameter'. Without `compgen'
> } we need it in too many places to get away without it. And now the same
> } question as for the `computil' module: should we make them be
> } automatically autoloaded (and linked in for static shells)
> Yes! If the stock set of completion functions are useless without them,
> they have to be linked into static shells. However, it would be nice if
> they weren't actually "loaded" in the zmodload sense until they were
> needed, even in a static shell. That's going to require some changes to
> the way zmodload and static modules work.
Right. Hadn't thought about that either. But in a fully static shell,
wouldn't it a bit surprising when, for example, parameters just appear
because they are used (because they were `autoloaded')?
Anyway, the patch at least makes the parameter modules autoloaded.
diff -u oldsrc/xmods.conf Src/xmods.conf
--- oldsrc/xmods.conf Wed Oct 27 10:38:17 1999
+++ Src/xmods.conf Wed Oct 27 10:39:01 1999
@@ -5,3 +5,5 @@
diff -u oldcompletion/Core/compinit Completion/Core/compinit
--- oldcompletion/Core/compinit Tue Oct 26 13:12:03 1999
+++ Completion/Core/compinit Wed Oct 27 10:39:37 1999
@@ -78,10 +78,6 @@
-# We need the parameter modules.
-zmodload -i parameter zleparameter
# The associative array containing the definitions for the commands.
# Definitions for patterns will be stored in the normal arrays `_patcomps'
# and `_postpatcomps'.
diff -u olddoc/Zsh/compsys.yo Doc/Zsh/compsys.yo
--- olddoc/Zsh/compsys.yo Tue Oct 26 13:11:30 1999
+++ Doc/Zsh/compsys.yo Wed Oct 27 10:42:03 1999
@@ -23,10 +23,6 @@
for further details.
-Also note that this completion system requires the tt(parameter) and
-tt(zleparameter) modules to be linked into the shell or to be
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by: