Re: completion

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/07/2015 09:26 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But the ambiguity shouldn't be intentional.
> Nevertheless, it is.
...

If * matches everything, then this could mean [any of]

  :completion:[any function]:complete:[any cmd]:[any arg]:[any tag]
  :completion:[any function]:[any completer]:complete:[any arg]:[any tag]
  :completion:[any function]:[any completer]:[any cmd]:complete:[any tag]

> You're correct, it could.  But "matcher-list" also has to match, and
> THAT only happens in one of those three cases, so there's no need to
> constrain the pattern any further (unless you WANT to; refer to my
> car-cover analogy).
Ah!  So I find myself reaching for a better word. 'ambiguity' = 
uncertainty or confusion. What we have here, then, is not confusion, but 
rather a carefully
expanded space of possibilities, or freedoms.

   $ ls zsh* ... the asterisk is not ambiguous, we know *exactly* what 
is means.
It expands the matching space, but that is not an ambiguity because we know
exactly what the rules are.  If our zstyle asterisks do something 
analogous, then they are not an ambiguity.  Right? Wrong?