Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: _a2ps completion
- X-seq: zsh-workers 9334
- From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: PATCH: _a2ps completion
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:08:08 +0100 (MET)
- In-reply-to: Clint Adams's message of Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:28:38 -0500
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Clint Adams wrote:
> I have been informed that a2ps can be just as useful on PostScript
> files as any other file, and that *.(#i)(ps|eps) should not be
> excluded from completion. Perhaps a context-based switch would
> be more appropriate.
> ...
> -_arguments '*:text file:_files -g \*\~\*.\(\#i\)\(ps\|eps\)' -- \
> +_arguments '*:input file:_files' -- \
I'm against this change. Very much so. At least in this form.
There are two acceptable possibilities I can see:
- use the patch and suggest (where?) that people who don't want to see
the ps files use
zstyle ':completion:*::a2ps:*' ignored-patterns '*.(#i)(ps|eps)'
or
- don't use the patch and document (at the top of _a2ps?) that people
who want to complete all files should RTM and use the standard
mechanism of the tag-order style:
zstyle ':completion:*::a2ps:*' tag-order all-files
cause that's what it's there for, dammit.
I'm very much in favour of the second suggestion because I guess that
only few people want to use a2ps on postscript files and using
completion on a prefix where no non-postscript file matches gives one
postscript files as matches anyway (that's why we use _files, after
all).
Bye
Sven
--
Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author