Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
RE: still confused about completion and matching
- X-seq: zsh-workers 13081
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: still confused about completion and matching
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:50:04 +0200 (MET DST)
- In-reply-to: "Andrej Borsenkow"'s message of Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:41:14 +0400
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
> This condition predates styles. Now we do have suitable means for users to
> configure desired behaviour.
> As I said long ago, I did not want Zsh to decide for me when to start menu
> completion if I did not request it. I do not want to invent another condition.
> > 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.
> First, why are you _so_ sure there won't be any common prefix? For people that
> know shell glob patterns by heart it is sometimes easier to type pattern than
> to invent matching specification. And matches for foobar[1-9] are always
> shorter than pattern itself.
I'm not sure that it is, I'm sure that it might be...
> Second, how does it differ from ordinary completion? The sole thing I wanted -
> let's treat completion and matching equally. Both give you a set of matches to
> select from. Let's use common rules to decide when and how these matches are
> inserted. (After all, "ordinary" completion is just matching with pattern
> $PREFIX*$SUFFIX ... even if not implemented this way. I do not see why
> $PREFIX?#$SUFFIX should be treated differently :-)
... different from ordinary completion because there we have a lot of
code that can deal with the types of matching (match specs) allowed
there to build unambiguous strings without losing characters typed by
But I didn't want it to sound as if I'm religiously attached to the
current behaviour. I'm not. We can also change it to look up the
insert-unambiguous style lately, after the completions have been
generated. People can then use `zstyle -e' to add conditions if they
I guess that would be acceptable to everyone? Especially if we add
a/some example(s) to the manual showing clever things one might want
to try there?
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by: