Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: _diff (new), _prcs (upgrade)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 9459
- From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz <duret_g@xxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: PATCH: _diff (new), _prcs (upgrade)
- Date: 28 Jan 2000 16:04:23 +0100
- Cc: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: Sven Wischnowsky's message of "Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:25:22 +0100 (MET)"
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <200001281025.LAA20330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> "Sven" == Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Sven> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
[...]
>> My opinion is: we should write $(XXX) if we are in the completion
>> function for XXX, and $(command XXX) otherwise.
[...]
Sven> But then a hackishly written function may still break everything (if
Sven> you have a function for diff that actually does something if invoked
Sven> with zero or only one argument, for example).
Yes. And since _call shall allow people to customize the completion system
for those cases, it's not a problem anyway.
[...]
Sven> So the style would only be used to get the command (including: how it
Sven> should be invoked, i.e. with `command' or not) and any options the
Sven> user wants to give to it. If the style is not set we use some standard
Sven> way, so we don't have to set up default styles for this.
This (your last sentence) assume that no option is used by default (like
the call to ps in _pids). This seems restrictive (but I don't have an
example where options are needed by default, and where the user would want
to change them).
>> ...
>>
>> Another point about the $+functions[<name>] test: what if I am writting a
>> completion function for a shell function? say I need to call it, how do I
>> do?
Sven> Good point. Also testing $+commands and $+builtins might help here,
Sven> but could still be wrong. Hm, I just wanted to make this cleverer but
Sven> since the style would allow one to override it anyway, we should
Sven> probably just call it without any pre-command modifier in the default
Sven> case. Or let _call accept options like -c and -b to say that the
Sven> default should use `command' or `builtin'.
Given I am writting a _call in a completion function, how do I decide
whether I must use -[bc] or not? We ne a rule here, that should be used
consistently in the completion system (see the first paragraph for what I
suggest).
And if a rule is chosen, _call can apply it, and therefore -[bc] parameters
may not be needed anymore.
[...]
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author