Re: PATCH Re: squeeze-slashes false not working?

[Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 15 May 2011 03:39, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On May 14,  8:31pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> }
> } On 14 May 2011 07:58, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> } > On May 13, 10:07pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> } > }
> } > } With the same and path-files off, it simply behaves as if I had ls
> } > } /<tab>, ie it completes components in / after the four slashes.
> } >
> } > You mean path-completion off, but yes.  In this case it *should* be
> } > happening this way because
>
> I accidentally left that sentence unfinished:
>
> ... because by definition path-completion false means not to try to
> do any completing between slashes (whether consecutive slashes or
> not) unless the cursor is placed there and complete-in-word is set.
> This is independent of the setting of squeeze-slashes.
>
> Given that, does this next thing you said --
>
> } So maybe the squeeze-slashes entry should mention something to the
> } effect that disabling it will only allow other options to do stuff,
> } but maybe nothing will. But in a less stupid way.
>
> -- still mean anything?

Yeah, I sort of guessed the part you left out. What I would want is
some sort of hint in the squeeze-slashes description that
path-completion also has to be on, and as it turns out, maybe it
should mention accept-exact-dirs too. Is the squeeze-slashes setting
needed at all though? It seems like changing it or path-completion has
exactly the same effect; does enabling squeeze-slashes change some
behaviour that disabling path-completion does not change?

-- 
Mikael Magnusson