Re: new completion modifications

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Mar 23,  2:16pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> } Subject: Re: new completion modifications
> }
> } Sven wrote:
> } > This seems reasonable.  Question to everyone (and -workers in
> } > particular): should we add a `urls' style, comparable to `hosts' and
> } > such, that just gives a bunch of strings to complete as urls?
> } > Probably taking precedence over the other things (different from
> } > `hosts' and friends).
> } 
> } Something like this.
> 
> That, and/or a flat file of URLs rather than a directory structure.  Hmm,
> we could have the following styles for the `urls' tag:
> 
> 	file	-- flat file containing URLs to complete (new?)
> 	local	-- prefixes for completing local URLs (exists now)
> 	path	-- location of directory tree mapping URLs (exists)
> 	urls	-- array of URLs to complete (new?)
> 
> I'm not sure about the names "file" and "path", but ...

After thinking again... do we really need two new style?  Or any?

E.g.:

  path -- unchanged
  urls -- if it has only one value and that is the name of a file,
          take the urls from that file

or:

  path -- if the value names a directory, use as we use it now, if it
          names a normal file, take the urls from it
  urls -- just a list of urls

or:

  path -- removed
  urls -- if it has only one value
            if that is the name of a directory: like path now
            elif it is the name of a normal file: list of urls from the file
          otherwise the values are the urls

In any case local is unchanged.

After all, how often would one want to use more than one setup?


Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx