Re: completion

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/10/2014 09:44 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Dec 10,  5:17pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> } Subject: Re: completion
> }
> } On 12/10/2014 04:34 PM, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> } > The five colons are included because they prevent the completer style
> } > from matching in other contexts where you might want a different
> } > configuration.
> }
> } They 'prevent' ...  What would not be prevented if there were only four
> } colons?
>
> OK, now you're just being hyperbolic.  Did you not read any of the doc
> that Larry and Oliver mentioned?
Several times.  If there's an explanation of the five colons I've missed it.
And I'm not being theatrical.  If five colons has meaning, then one might
expect some other number of colons to have meaning as well. I tried to
understand that as empty fields as well, but the number of colons in
various examples changes so it can't be a dumb array kind of thing.
> In most cases, people write ':completion:*' so as not to care about the
> number of colons.  The Book is just being extra pedantic.
Ah ... this could be the key.  I've not tried to cross reference the 
star against
the extra colons.  I'll reread it with that in mind.