Re: new completion modifications

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 23,  2:16pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: new completion modifications
}
} Sven wrote:
} > This seems reasonable.  Question to everyone (and -workers in
} > particular): should we add a `urls' style, comparable to `hosts' and
} > such, that just gives a bunch of strings to complete as urls?
} > Probably taking precedence over the other things (different from
} > `hosts' and friends).
} 
} Something like this.

That, and/or a flat file of URLs rather than a directory structure.  Hmm,
we could have the following styles for the `urls' tag:

	file	-- flat file containing URLs to complete (new?)
	local	-- prefixes for completing local URLs (exists now)
	path	-- location of directory tree mapping URLs (exists)
	urls	-- array of URLs to complete (new?)

I'm not sure about the names "file" and "path", but ...

} I don't know if it's going to be a problem with it always taking
} precedence, however; one of these simple ones can then mask any of the
} other sort if you just type a fairly generic prefix.

I don't think that's a problem because the tag is always `urls'; they'd
just be in different groups.  Am I confused?

} (Does anyone else use _next_tags?)

I have, but rarely.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net