Re: Latest patched development version

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> 
> A long time ago, in a year far far away, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> } Bruce Stephens wrote:
> } > Bruce Stephens <b.stephens@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> } > 
> } > > Completion seems to have vanished, but I just tried with zsh -f, and
> } > > it works again, so that's presumably just something that's changed
> } > > in the compctl syntax that's not being reported as an error.
> } > 
> } > I've found it.  It was this example completion:
> } > 
> } > compctl -Tx 's[/home/] C[0,^/home/*/*]'  -S '/' \
> } >     -s '$(niscat auto_home.org_dir | \
> } > 	awk '\''/export\/[a-zA-Z]*$/ {print $NF}'\'' FS=/)'
> } 
> } Peter's version contains my patch for completion continuing. With this 
> } we almost ever need a `-tc' in the `-T' completion.
> } 
> } (I said that trouble would come of that...)
> 
> Is there any reason that -tc simply can't be implicit?  That is, why not
> always continue with the next suitable completion, leaving -t+ -t- and -tx
> to change what "next suitable" means?  And then perhaps throw in something
> like -tn to mean "no, DON'T continue."
> 
> Seems to me it's more often the case that you want to go on trying other
> possible completions rather than giving up.  The default should be what
> the most common case is.

I wanted to leave the previous behavior unchanged as much as
possible. The `-T' is the only case where multiple compctl's were
tested in all other cases making -t<whatever> implicit would make
things differ from the way it was before my patches.
So we could make -tc implicit for -T (at least the `global' -tc,
before any -x). That would make things behave like they always did but 
I didn't like to add special cases at that time.
Anyway before I change anything I would like to hear a bit more what
people would like to have, ok?

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx