Re: squeeze-slashes false not working?

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 13 May 2011 20:23:15 +0200
Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 13 May 2011 20:17, Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 19:18:26 +0200
> > Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Another old mail:
> >> """
> >> estragib noted on irc that
> >> 21:28:58 <estragib> completing ~/d/p/t/i.<TAB> works for
> >> ~/dev/prj/test/index.html, as does ~/d/*/*/ind<TAB>. i vaguely remember
> >> seeing a setting somewhere that will allow ~/d///ind<TAB> but can't find
> >> it again. help? :)
> >>
> >> and it seems that setting squeeze-slashes to true or false has no
> >> effect, the slashes are always squeezed. But it works in zsh -f.
> >> """
> >>
> >> But now I can't reproduce it working in zsh -f. At best it jumps back
> >> to the first doubleslash and completes at that point. Maybe another
> >> option is interfering, any idea which one if so?
> >
> > That's the standard feature that it tries to expand path segments before
> > the first.  It can be turned off by setting the style path-completion to
> > false, although what setting it to false does is to allow _path_files to
> > skip a prefix of the file that already exists, and I'm not sure what
> > happens if there are multiple slashes there.
> 
> Hm, with that set, zsh -f starts acting like with my .zshrc, ie as if
> I only had one slash. Does ls /////<tab> just show stuff in / for you
> too? The documentation for squeeze-slashes says it should act like I
> typed ls /*/*/*/*/<tab>.

Er, that sounds like it means it works with path-files *on*, and I don't
know how that's supposed to be implemented.  It also looks I don't know
what's supposed to be happening in any given case, either, or quite what
is or isn't working.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web page now at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.w.stephenson/