Re: Tests of interrupting completion, and completion_nostat_dirs

[Greg Klanderman <gak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> On February 5, 2014 Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Greg, I'm going to let Peter make the call on this one because he has
> become more concerned about namespace clutter that I.

> I would say that the change to ztat() should continue to read from a
> variable.  I think I'd have ztat() call getaparam() rather than declare
> a C array tied to a special variable (compare the way zle_refresh.c
> handles zle_highlight) but I'll stop at that.

Thank you Bart, the only downside I see is that I currently use the
existence of the special variable to decide whether to configure the
automount points in the fake-files zstyle, since I end up having to
kill my shell from another window if the automounts get configured in
a shell that doesn't have my patch and I ever hit tab to complete
under an automount.

If I use getaparam, is the only way to test if the feature exists with
a ZSH_VERSION / ZSH_PATCHLEVEL check?  Do we have any mechanism for
creating named features to test against?  Would it make sense to add a
readonly 'features' associative array (maybe in the zsh/parameter module)
whose keys are feature strings?

I'll wait to hear from Peter before doing anything..

Greg