Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: PATCH Re: squeeze-slashes false not working?
- X-seq: zsh-workers 29295
- From: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: PATCH Re: squeeze-slashes false not working?
- Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 11:48:59 +0200
- Cc: zsh workers <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Hsk8B5eE2nFujDf5yyjkoEl+r9+wR1SHQPcg8PJNlzY=; b=FhUXeVf6am3xPa4P5mK6pcYPdvBOODLqrT/QgLevmKBPVTlrexhJTqUKTwpXumc/QY XBjNluOIMVuH7MHFNch8AQYyllS253Kn/f8fmYi4+8A4TMC9XWPz5lMCY2dALH0ZuBEj bOzNtqJzEnzrVPlVCjLJtskSQT5dAlwohU0to=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=PXzyWUNF91sW2nA0UfXJ5g13/oTyaTzVtNwlPK/YiXFCWmPdsTVMRdmMM7xABZ6fOu oTRZzQ/pi8DjfXMaaxtPQHoC38ewNWxcM8dQrKocbkDqTyGXUEgjlOjMf8J5bo6zEM5q S7/FUOMMoY9kQoMETIZ8NwHn1aanRgY47QOqs=
- In-reply-to: <110514183909.ZM15134@torch.brasslantern.com>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <BANLkTikqnR3pJk8FzRT6Qo9J+wTMGSnycQ@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <BANLkTi=KyDfiM1YqXR0q1w-PxiAeQ0thdQ@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <BANLkTi=7vnGkz2uPTyd3Br019SuxV5_Q2Q@mail.gmail.com> <110513225805.ZM13712@torch.brasslantern.com> <BANLkTi=c-dxpE5Dtm-SAEFE8YJRaguc+Tw@mail.gmail.com> <110514183909.ZM15134@torch.brasslantern.com>
On 15 May 2011 03:39, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On May 14, 8:31pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> } On 14 May 2011 07:58, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> } > On May 13, 10:07pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> } > }
> } > } With the same and path-files off, it simply behaves as if I had ls
> } > } /<tab>, ie it completes components in / after the four slashes.
> } >
> } > You mean path-completion off, but yes. In this case it *should* be
> } > happening this way because
> I accidentally left that sentence unfinished:
> ... because by definition path-completion false means not to try to
> do any completing between slashes (whether consecutive slashes or
> not) unless the cursor is placed there and complete-in-word is set.
> This is independent of the setting of squeeze-slashes.
> Given that, does this next thing you said --
> } So maybe the squeeze-slashes entry should mention something to the
> } effect that disabling it will only allow other options to do stuff,
> } but maybe nothing will. But in a less stupid way.
> -- still mean anything?
Yeah, I sort of guessed the part you left out. What I would want is
some sort of hint in the squeeze-slashes description that
path-completion also has to be on, and as it turns out, maybe it
should mention accept-exact-dirs too. Is the squeeze-slashes setting
needed at all though? It seems like changing it or path-completion has
exactly the same effect; does enabling squeeze-slashes change some
behaviour that disabling path-completion does not change?
Messages sorted by: