Re: PATCH: matching in the new completion system

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:

> I was thinking about having compadd prepare the final list, i.e. you
> give it a list of prefixes and maybe suffixes when you use the -O option so
> that you don't have to do any filtering on the pattern later on.  But at
> the moment it doesn't seem to be necessary.

;-) I was thinking about the same thing when I first implemented the
new `_path_files', but couldn't find a way to give those prefixes and
suffixes to `compadd'. I would prefer to be able to make this by
giving the strings to test plus something, where the something are not 
two more lists of strings. Maybe the strings plus a way to say what
should be compared (since with `-[AO]' compadd is only doing matching,
almost all other options are useless and hence ignored, so it might be 
ok to add support for matching magic here). On the other hand, all
versions of `_path_files' we had make it clear that being able to give 
different `-p' and `-s' prefixes and suffixes per string would be
interesting to have without the `-[AO]', too.

I was also thinking about being able to give an array-name instead of
giving the string as arguments. Might speed things up a bit for large
numbers of strings to test.

Ok, does anyone have suggestions (for the first one)?

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx