Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Problem with fake-files style and cd
- X-seq: zsh-workers 29397
- From: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Problem with fake-files style and cd
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 16:24:54 +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=L+k+Nzl6FoFBDjqmUKUF7b1sTvWz2y44733FLQWYEkY=; b=jKfXBM0TnemaYvnmEcSahWB4yhRQSu/hQuT7TSfKLstrKWI+clWbBNQBKF2favoFeX EEBe3YsysALiTDqZ1/xr0IChWn9xKtRzlVeZnziPjAk+D4vMyIbm4Yib+Vtp42pquHPx WHC2okzmp4vKbE1oDMzyCORYC5RmLZkJulp9Y=
- 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=R57Rk9hWPkJe9/YuR1HyFiv/uV7K1ZBRCDFEgjB2yIizq7X9JrqG5Dzrqsjyhhxxo0 nUZzA5X44HV+TvildlgPxUSVZ4er+JTJ36tMFj/cW8HJ9B2wa5r5SlTE2hr0NGkESSmE abcg5lgxdIuw1Jkn8szUwvnRWiay4p3HZ9y5E=
- In-reply-to: <110526223650.ZM804@torch.brasslantern.com>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <200902141801.n1EI1E2l003603@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <090214111316.ZM15188@torch.brasslantern.com> <email@example.com> <090214133904.ZM15383@torch.brasslantern.com> <20090216094632.30502fe9@news01> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <BANLkTimWC7jt3NudrWmnUhxkXMaLfemail@example.com> <110526214110.ZM518@torch.brasslantern.com> <BANLkTimETQb9vYit9jt5oKmzGOCyWYZ8qQ@mail.gmail.com> <110526223650.ZM804@torch.brasslantern.com>
On 27 May 2011 07:36, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:57am, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> } On 27 May 2011 06:41, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> } > There are no full-stops in any of the other items in that list.
> Hmm, I'm wrong about that; other-files (which is the other place that
> says "used instead") has full stops both in the middle and at the end.
> variant has one at the end only. Not very consistent, are we.
> } How's this?
> Fine, except see below.
> } > More substantively, remind me what "used instead" means here? The
> } > word "used" is not specific enough, I guess.
> } I'm not sure how this is unclear, but when cdpath is set,
> } local-directories is looked up, when it is unset directories is looked
> } up.
> Ok, so "used" means "looked up". But the above is true only for "cd"
> (and other commands handled by _cd), not by e.g. _files.
Oops. This then?
for names of directories DASH()- when the tt(cdpath) array is set,
tt(local-directories) is used instead when completing arguments of
tt(cd) and related builtin commands
Or is this better?
for names of directories DASH()- tt(local-directories) is used instead
when completing arguments of tt(cd) and related builtin commands when
the tt(cdpath) array is set
> And path-directories is looked up *as well*, not *instead*, though it
> is used before named-directories and after local-directories. The
> intent is that anything that would be in directories is split among
> local- and path- when cdpath is set.
I think it's enough that the entry for local-directories refers the
reader to path-directories. It's heavily implied that path-directories
does nothing when cdpath is empty too. What is the motivation though?
Why not just always have just 'directories' and then also look up
path-directories when cdpath is set, otherwise not? Does someone
actually want local directories to complete differently depending on
> } That reminds me, one of the places that uses it is the entry for
> } use-perl
> Well, yeah, but that one is talking about perl being run in place of
> awk. There's only one thing "used" can possibly mean there, and
> anyway use-perl is a style name, not a tag name.
> } which says that _make uses this style, but since the rewrite
> } it does not. It is currently completely unused, should we remove this
> } paragraph?
> } Currently this is only used in completions for `make', but it may be
> } extended depending on authorial frustration.
> If it's entirely unused we could remove the entire entry, or replace
> that paragraph with one that says the style name is reserved for use
> by future competion authors, or the like.
I'll remove it then if nobody complains. Or do you prefer commenting
it out in case it needs to be brought back?
Messages sorted by: