Re: Oh my God! They killed completion! YOU BASTARDS!

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 7,  9:58am, Andrew Main wrote:
} Subject: Re: Oh my God! They killed completion! YOU BASTARDS!
}
} pacman@xxxxxxx wrote:
} >I must object to the changes to completion behavior in zsh 3.1 as opposed to
} >the previous versions. First, on the matter of LIST_AMBIGUOUS, I would
} >suggest that if you're going to add a new option that dramatically alters
} >some existing rules that people have been been using for a long time, at the
} >very least you shouldn't turn it on by default!

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that LIST_AMBIGUOUS has been an option
for several versions now.  What changed was its default setting.

} There was a policy decision made in 3.1.1 that, generally speaking, the
} clever interactive options should be enabled by default.  It does change
} the default behaviour, but it doesn't affect scripts (where compatibility
} really matters), and the new behaviour is usually preferred.

I'm not sure if this is a problem for LIST_AMBIGUOUS (I haven't installed
3.1.4 yet) but we should be careful that a new default setting is not going
to adversely affect other options that may be set in the user's .z* files.
For example, if we were to make AUTO_MENU a default, people who normally
set MENU_COMPLETE would be in for a nasty surprise.

} >              If I _wanted_ to use a new option, I'd like the chance to read
} >about it first, and then turn it on if it sounds like a good idea.
} 
} The Etc/NEWS file does list new options.

Which doesn't help for either of LIST_AMBIGUOUS or ALWAYS_LAST_PROMPT,
because they aren't new.

} >particular option, I think, is not a good idea, and I don't appreciate
} >having it forced upon me by a new default setting. Please, let's have
} >a little backward compatibility.
} 
} Possibility for zsh-workers: should `emulate' have the capability to
} emulate earlier zsh versions?

Maybe a better approach would be to distribute an autoloadable script
that, when run, would report the differences between the current zsh and
a specified previous version (default the last major release).

Alternately/additionally, have a script that would search the PATH for
older versions of zsh (`make install` usually leaves old versions behind
as zsh-x.y.z), allow the user to pick one, and generate on stdout a list
of setopt commands the user might want to add to his .zshrc, e.g., by
comparing the output of "setopt" from the old version to the current
one.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com