Re: PATCH: Re: Option completion after "nono"

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Oct 9,  2:48pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> } 
> } Bart Schaefer wrote:
> } 
> } > Speaking of using nonomatch, have you tried to complete it?
> } 
> } Hm, I think it should do the right thing without using match-spec
> } hacks.
> } 
> } The patch below does that by preferring exact character matches over
> } using match specs.
> 
> One can now complete "nomatch" and "notify" but still not "nonomatch"
> and "nonotify".

Ouch, of course. No good writing such patches between two exams.

Well, this patch makes match_str() go back when it just accepted some
exact character matches but can't match any further. It goes back to
before those character and then tries again, using the match specs.

I.e. it now tries both styles we had before.

Bye
 Sven

Index: Src/Zle/compmatch.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/zsh/zsh/Src/Zle/compmatch.c,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -r1.24 compmatch.c
--- Src/Zle/compmatch.c	2000/10/09 12:50:21	1.24
+++ Src/Zle/compmatch.c	2000/10/10 08:30:50
@@ -440,7 +440,7 @@
 match_str(char *l, char *w, Brinfo *bpp, int bc, int *rwlp,
 	  int sfx, int test, int part)
 {
-    int ll = strlen(l), lw = strlen(w), oll = ll, olw = lw;
+    int ll = strlen(l), lw = strlen(w), oll = ll, olw = lw, exact = 0, wexact = 0;
     int il = 0, iw = 0, t, ind, add, he = 0, bpc, obc = bc, bslash;
     VARARR(unsigned char, ea, (ll > lw ? ll : lw) + 1);
     char *ow;
@@ -489,11 +489,12 @@
 	 * Update: this once tested `test && ...' to check for exact
 	 * character matches only in recursive calls.  But then one
 	 * can't complete `nom<TAB>' to `nomatch' with a match spec
-	 * of `B:[nN][oO]=' because that will eat the `no'. I'm almost
-	 * certain that this will break something, but I don't know what
-	 * or if it really is a problem (or has been fixed by other
-	 * changes in the code handling partial word matching). And the
-	 * completion matching tests work.
+	 * of `B:[nN][oO]=' because that will eat the `no'.
+	 * But that would break completion of strings like `nonomatch'
+	 * because the `B:[nN][oO]=' doesn't match the second `no'.
+	 * For this we added the code below that can remove already
+	 * accepted exact characters and try again, preferring match
+	 * specs.
 	 */
 
 	bslash = 0;
@@ -503,10 +504,12 @@
 			(ind ? (w[0] == l[0]) : (w[1] == l[0])))))) {
 	    /* No matcher could be used, but the strings have the same
 	     * character here, skip over it. */
-	    l += add; w += (bslash ? (add + add ) : add);
+	    l += add; w += (bslash ? (add + add) : add);
 	    il++; iw += 1 + bslash;
 	    ll--; lw -= 1 + bslash;
 	    bc++;
+	    exact++;
+	    wexact += 1 + bslash;
 	    if (!test)
 		while (bp && bc >= (useqbr ? bp->qpos : bp->pos)) {
 		    bp->curpos = matchbufadded + (sfx ? (ow - w) : (w - ow)) + obc;
@@ -517,6 +520,7 @@
 
 	    continue;
 	}
+    retry:
 	/* First try the matchers. Err... see above. */
 	for (mp = NULL, ms = mstack; !mp && ms; ms = ms->next) {
 	    for (mp = ms->matcher; mp; mp = mp->next) {
@@ -687,6 +691,7 @@
 		    ll -= llen; il += llen;
 		    lw -= alen; iw += alen;
 		    bc += llen;
+		    exact = 0;
 
 		    if (!test)
 			while (bp &&
@@ -798,6 +803,7 @@
 		    il += mp->llen; iw += mp->wlen;
 		    ll -= mp->llen; lw -= mp->wlen;
 		    bc += mp->llen;
+		    exact = 0;
 
 		    if (!test)
 			while (bp &&
@@ -836,6 +842,23 @@
 	    lm = NULL;
 	    he = 0;
 	} else {
+
+	    if (exact) {
+		/* If we just accepted some characters directly (at the
+		 * beginning of the loop) and now can't match any further,
+		 * we go back to before those characters and try again,
+		 * preferring match specs this time. */
+
+		il -= exact; iw -= wexact;
+		ll += exact; lw += wexact;
+		bc -= exact;
+		l -= add * exact; w -= add * wexact;
+
+		exact = wexact = 0;
+
+		goto retry;
+	    }
+
 	    if (!lw)
 		break;
 	    /* No matcher and different characters: l does not match w. */

--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx