Re: PATCH: expansion

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Jun 13,  1:24pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> } Subject: PATCH: expansion
> }
> }   Note that I've used the same default value in _expand as it has
> }   elsewhere (`false'), which means that without further configuring,
> }   this now behaves differently. Should we make it default to `true' in 
> }   _expand?
> 
> If it now behaves by default more like the way the old expand-or-complete
> behaved, then I think we should leave it.

It is more like e-o-c. So this makes me wonder if the default for the
suffix style should be changed (currently its default is like the old
_expand, changing it would make it like e-o-c).

> Either that or the default
> should be different depending on whether _expand was used as a completer
> or called from _expand_word ... hrmm ...

I'm never too happy with adding differences between a completer and
the bindable command for it...

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx