Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHYJk3R-gr5C2LTJeXKaW7oUfs49pdPKkj=y3-XCv2dMT7rbcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160226175937.GA22547@lorien.comfychair.org>
	<160226114511.ZM17604@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<8456.1456706752@thecus.kiddle.eu>
	<160306094154.ZM20831@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<CAHYJk3R-gr5C2LTJeXKaW7oUfs49pdPKkj=y3-XCv2dMT7rbcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 12:12:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHYJk3SbxtRxh6N0WtVfgSf0urCkYyqGG0foEHT72g93E-_hfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: reverse-menu-complete re-starting completion on 5.2?
From: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com>
To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Cc: Zsh workers <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
>> Meant to respond to this a while ago ...
>>
>> On Feb 29,  1:45am, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
>> }
>> } Even before that commit I can reproduce a variant of the problem by
>> } starting menu completion with reverse-menu-complete and then switching
>> } to a forwards menu complete.
>>
>> Not surprising, really.
>>
>> } [...] I'm really not sure why we need to be so
>> } strict about the completion widget matching the last completion widget.
>>
>> The only reason I can think of is in case menu completion is invoked from
>> within a user-defined widget, or otherwise entered by a different widget
>> than simple forward/reverse menu completion.  In that instance the user is
>> presumably not continuing with the menu in progress but instead wants to
>> start over.  I.e. similar to tests of $LASTWIDGET in Functions/Zle/*.
>>
>> } anyone foresee any problem with just relaxing the condition (see patch).
>>
>> Maybe we'd need another flag action for "zle -f" to continue/interrupt a
>> menu in progress, but probably it will work as expected more often with
>> the patch than without.  I suggest you push and we'll find out if a need
>> for a flag arises.
>
> I can tell you I quite often complete a directory name using normal
> completion, and then press ctrl-n to complete files inside by latest
> modification date. If this continued cycling directories instead, it
> would be quite inconvenient. But yeah, push and we'll see what happens
> to that.

Well, this use-case did indeed break with this commit.

-- 
Mikael Magnusson