Re: Redirection completion

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> What I'm worring about is
> > if I'm in some generic form of redirection completion I can still check
> > for `-redirect-echo-2>' in pattern-files, or does the context still just lo
> ok
> > like `-redirect-2>' or `-redirect--default-'?
> 
> Ah, I see.  Currently it is as you fear, it just uses the string for
> which it found a completion function.  That's obviously silly and I'll
> change that this evening.
> 
> But I'm not really sure which string to prefer in each case.  I'd
> prefer the most specific one, i.e. `-redirect-echo-2>' in this case.
> Would that be ok for our users if we document it?

I think that would be fine.  As my slightly compressed first email was
supposed to indicate, I think it's entirely natural in a zstyle command
to stick in `*'s where you don't care about the result (or [^:]# if
you're really paranoid).  I suspect people are perfectly used to this.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************