Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: problem with _arguments exclusion lists
- X-seq: zsh-workers 14052
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: problem with _arguments exclusion lists
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:31:34 +0200 (MET DST)
- In-reply-to: <3ADEEFCC.E3D1C6ED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Let me try to summarise:
1) Add an option to _arguments, that says that it should always try to
complete options after options specified with `-x-:...' or `-x+:...'.
This makes it a stronger form of -W: -W makes it complete options
after options that get an argument in the next word. The new option
says that other options are to be completed even if the argument
has to or may be given in the same word.
2) Also, make it try completing options in those places even if the new
_arguments-option is not given but the action for the argument
The `returns non-null' is, of course, problematic again if the option-
argument has to be completed with a `->state' action. But I think if
a command is complicated enough to require that, it should use the
option from 1) anyway.
And add a small utility function that can be put into an argument-
action and tests if the string typed so far matches some pattern.
For simplicity I would make it use the description given in the
_arguments-spec. And if a simple pattern match is enough for most
cases, this makes it sound as if we should just add a new action-
syntax, avoiding the need for an extra function consisting of only
two lines. More complicated tests can still be implemented with
additional functions, of course.
I don't remember exactly, but I think we were talking about pattern
matching in _arguments-actions some time ago. If we decide to put
the simple matching-case into _arguments itself, we could also go
another way: instead of making it a new type of action, we make it be
some kind of `guard' that can be prefixed to any of the action-types
_arguments supports now. If it is given before an empty option, it
only says if a message should be displayed or not.
I think I like this even better.
Ok, would this be enough for now? Later we can, as suggested by Oliver,
add a way to change the behaviour on a per-option basis, using the
option from 1) as the default. If we ever meet a command that needs
that much control.
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by: