From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26613 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2013 20:40:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 18099 Received: (qmail 26539 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2013 20:40:16 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <131105124000.ZM18277@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:40:00 -0800 In-reply-to: <131105114640.ZM18224@torch.brasslantern.com> Comments: In reply to Bart Schaefer "Re: Fish-like autosuggestions" (Nov 5, 11:46am) References: <131030092555.ZM8077@torch.brasslantern.com> <131105075700.ZM18043@torch.brasslantern.com> <20131105161858.543037da@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <131105114640.ZM18224@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: Zsh-Users List Subject: Re: Fish-like autosuggestions MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Nov 5, 11:46am, Bart Schaefer wrote: } } ... a single predefined widget name that is called at that point ... } } Hmm, the doc doesn't actually explain what the return value from a -F } handler means to the surrounding code. There should probably be some } sort of return-code-based protocol to indicate whether handling should } proceed, which makes me lean away from the "instead" option but still } doesn't resolve before/after for me. A bit more examination leads me to feel that running the zle -F handler first, and then skipping the widget ("zle-tcp-handler" ?) if the -F function returns nonzero, is probably the most sensible way to go, both for backward compatibility and because it's harder to interpret the "failure" of a widget.