Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: still confused about completion and matching
- X-seq: zsh-workers 13077
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: still confused about completion and matching
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:12:12 +0200 (MET DST)
- In-reply-to: "E. Jay Berkenbilt"'s message of Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:00:58 -0400
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
E. Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> The most recent change to _match seems to cause it to revert to menu
> completion in many cases. If I just completely remove lines 56 and 57
> (dealing with unambiguous_cursor) then all my test cases work just the
> way I want them to.
To Bart and Andrej: the lines Jay is referring to are:
+ [[ $compstate[unambiguous_cursor] -gt $#compstate[unambiguous] ]] &&
+ ins=yes compstate[insert]="$ocsi" compstate[pattern_insert]="$ocspi"
These are new and don't have anything to do with the
> The only thing I lose is earlier expansion in
> some cases, but the result doesn't change the behavior or the amount
> of typing required.
And this is exactly what they were supposed to achieve. Inserting the
right expansions a bit earlier. The test is a bit weird, I admit, but
worked for the cases I tested, but probably not for other cases, so I
have don't have any problems whatsoever with removing them (or later
trying to come up with a better test.
> Would the
> next step be committing these changes and waiting for fallout? :-)
I'd like to ask what the other people around here think about
it. Without setting one of the new styles, the patch should only have
one visible effect: allowing to complete paths with multiple pattern-
Should we give it a try? Has anyone else tried it yet? (Andrej? I
/think/ you once asked for this multi-component-pattern completion.)
Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
> > insert-unambiguous
> > This is used by the _match and _approximate completer functions,
> > where the possible completions may not have a common prefix so
> > that menu completion is often the most useful may of choosing
> > completions. If the style is set to `true', the completer will
> > start menu completion only if no unambiguous string could be
> > generated that is at least as long as the original string typed by
> > the user.
> That is the problem. It means, that if you have long pattern that results in
> short match, menu completion is started.
> I was never happy about it as well. But I switched to menu selection some time
> ago :-)
Any suggestions about making this more clever or the results more
intuitive are welcome ;-)
As I sais in one of the previous mails, I wasn't completely happy with
that condition myself. The problem is that we certainly don't want to
insert the unambiguous string unconditionally even if insert-unambig
is set, because that string might often be empty.
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by: