Re: About the new long/short options changes

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 20,  9:38am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: About the new long/short options changes
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} 
} > I mostly like the way it looks in listings, though I wish

Not so incidentally, Sven:  That praise sounds rather faint, so I want to
say that I really do think the stuff you come up with is quite amazing,
and I apologize for not saying so more often.

} > TAB to the next selection (list now truncated for brevity):
} > 
} >   Completing option
} >   --binary                 [-b -- Unix line endings LF                   ]
} > ...
} 
} Really that or: 
} 
}     --binary                 [-b] -- Unix line endings LF
} 
} ?

That would be fine, too; but as the current selection code highlights
both the option name and the description, I thought it might be easier
to split the display into only two kinds of columns:  Options for which
the descriptions have been suppressed because they're identical to some
other option, and the options that have that identical description.  On
some hunch that it might be easier to line up the rows that way.
 
} I have some ideas how we could achive this, part of the stuff we need is
} already there.  Think of some combination of list-packed, list-rows-first
} and `dummy' matches that get slots in the listing but show nothing and
} can't be selected.

Yes, that is what I was thinking, though rather than dummy matches I
was thinking about chopping up the display into groups with different
columnations, as already happens when matches are explicitly added in
different groups.

} What are we coming to... ;-)

I'm not sure ...

-- 
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