Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Moving completion functions
- X-seq: zsh-workers 13659
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Moving completion functions
- Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 02:39:31 +0000
- In-reply-to: <200103161020.LAA28826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <200103161020.LAA28826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mar 16, 11:20am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: Moving completion functions
} - _use_lo should get a better name, yes. Hm, I don't like mixing the
} underscore-style we use with hyphens in function names, and anyway I
} prefer _parse_help (or _options_from__help?)
Let me jump back a bit and point out that it's not really correct to say
that _use_lo is a "utility" -- _arguments is the utility, and _use_lo
calls it; nobody would call _use_lo from some other function.
So I think _use_lo actually belongs in Unix/Command/, where the convention
is to use names that describe the command for which the function completes,
rather than names that describe what the function completes, or how.
Hence I think _use_lo should move to Unix/Command/_gnu_generic ... I'd
say _gnu_style, except for other "style" connotations.
} > For this reason, I think a Network directory is a good idea because it
} > is quite possible to have a computer which is not connected to the
} > network so all the networking related stuff are of no use. The X
} > division is I think useful.
} If we remove the second level on installation, this should be a
} first-level directory like X, though. And there's even stuff to fill
} a Network/Type directory.
This is OK, but ...
} > Graphic and Sound is a more complex issue
} > because you might care about programs which manipulate sound files or
} > images but not have the ability to play or display them.
} Yes, similar foe Network if it's a first level directory. There are
} network commands that need X and ones that don't.
I'd put anything that actually needs X under X first.
The biggest problem with doing so is X programs that are nothing more
than front-ends for text-based tools, when the text one is not installed.
Presumably it does little harm to have a few completion functions for X
commands that don't exist, but if there are actually dependencies among
the completion functions, errors could result if a completion for one of
those X commands happens to be attempted.
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by: