Re: Test failures in artih and arguments

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 30,  9:53am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} 
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} 
} > So it seems to me that we need a wildcard indicator of some kind, so
} > that _arguments can add the match `-<wild>'.  This would allow the `-'
} > to be treated as a prefix of the two matches `-x' and `-<wild>'.
} 
} Good analysis. And now I'm back at thinking: do we really want that?
} 
} If we don't want to be able to complete the options, we would just
} have to add `$PREFIX' or some such as a possible match.

That would work provided that it was added with the equilvalent of

	compadd -S '' $PREFIX

so that no space would be added after it.
 
} Sometimes I think that in such cases we should only force the message
} to be displayed, even if a match was accepted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would result in something like

zsh% foo -<TAB>
zsh% foo -x 
Completing arg

(assuming "zstyle :completion:* format 'Completing %d'")

That seems a bit confusing.  Or did you mean that, if there was a message
to be forced, then the accepted match would not be completed? That would
be OK, I think.

} And this is also affected by the fake style thing we are discussing
} (which might turn a case of `displaying a message' into `adding some
} matches').

Right, the question becomes how to tell when the message really should
be forced out, and when the faked matches should be used as the possible
completions instead.

Perhaps the thing to do is to treat <wild> as a style context rather than
as a possible match, and determine how to behave based on a style set in
that context.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net