* Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxx> [2002-04- 4 12:07:04 +0200]: > About the compctl part: I'd only consider such a list of > compctl-commands to be a todo-list of things that should be > implemented for the new system. And that may actually be helpful. > I'm not sure that there will be many such cases, though, with the new > system being as comprehensive as it already is. That's exactly the way I thought about it. > About the function-directory: the new system uses a hierarchy of > directories for classification and easier management. New functions > will and should be put into it (and hence will end up in the > distribution). Ditto. > For both parts: one of the things to look out for is opinions and > suggestions for different ways completion behaves. We recently had > someone who user@host completions to be inserted in one go, not with > `us<TAB>ho<TAB>'. Collecting such things would be interesting so that > we get a list of things we can try to make possible in the new system. Agree. > I think they can still be combined, at least they should. The > overhead for compctl from a user's point of view is basically that > there is another module loaded (for systems without dynamic linking it > has to be linked into the zsh binary). From my point of view there is > quite a bit of legacy code in the completion code that's only needed > to support compctl. And I hate that, but don't see a way around it. Well, you just pretty much stated my exact vision for the project. :) I have a working prototype of the "master script"; I'll try and clean it up a little more and post it later today. -- john@xxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpiKkMOPXEJY.pgp
Description: PGP signature