Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: compadd -r
- X-seq: zsh-workers 5325
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: compadd -r
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:37:40 -0800
- In-reply-to: <199902081217.NAA27404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <199902081217.NAA27404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Feb 8, 1:17pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: compadd -r
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
}
} > How about this: For the simple case (remove the whole suffix, which I
} > suspect is the most common by far) stick with something like `-r <str>'.
} > For complex cases, let the user give the name of a user-defined function
} > that is called as a callback as if it were a ZLE widget, that is, with
} > LBUFFER and RBUFFER etc. writable, and with the keystrokes that caused
} > it to be called also available somewhere.
}
} The easiest way to do this is to add a function-pointer-variable in
} the zle module that will be called whenever zle thinks that a suffix
} should be removed. The completion module sets this variable whenever
} it needs it to the address of a function that calls the given shell
} function.
Isn't this more complicated than necessary? Why couldn't it be the same
function pointer every time? All it has to do is the equivalent of
zle user-defined-widget
} This is easy to implement, but somehow I think that we probably should
} take this as an example for a more gerneral problem (calling functions
} in sub-modules from modules they depend upon), and solve that one.
Eh? There isn't any such dependency here, is there? The compctl module
already depends on zle, and it's calling a function in zle.
} What I'm thinking about is some kind of hook-mechanism. Giving modules
} the possibility to register functions that should be called whenever
} some event happens.
This is, in effect, what the "wrappers" already are.
} By making the description of the hooks contain a `char *name' this
} could also easily exposed to user level to let users register shell
} function to be executed when a hook is run. The builtin to control
} this could be added in a separate module, of course.
Have you finished reimplementing emacs yet?
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author