Re: autoload

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>]

On Sep 19, 11:13am, Ray Andrews wrote:
} Subject: Re: autoload
}
} I'm thinking about how the creation of a zwc file, and it's subsequent 
} use could be considered to be part of the same builtin.

But you don't say

    compiler -build something source/*
    compiler -load something

Rather, you build, and then you install, and then you run, and the way
all shells are designed, you use $path to bridge the install + run steps.

$fpath is the same idea; "autoload" is extra glue to tell the shell
that you DON'T want to use the default ($path) search for those names.

} autoload --make-zwc /Functions/Functions.zwc /Functions/*
} autoload --load-zwc /Functions/Functions.zwc
} 
} ... it wouldn't take long to understand.

As I've pointed out, these are exactly the same as

    zcompile /Functions/Functions.zwc /Functions/*
    FPATH=/Functions/Functions.zwc autoload +X -w /Functions/Functions.zwc

Although the better practice would be to do

    zcompile /Functions.zwc /Functions/*
    FPATH=/Functions.zwc autoload +X -w /Functions.zwc

if not because of the way fpath is searched, then for the same reason that
you shouldn't do

    tar -c /Functions/Functions.tar /Functions/*

Anyway, just make yourself a little wrapper function:

    loadorcompile() {	# rename as suits you
    	local how=$1; shift
	case $how in
	(--make-zwc) zcompile "$@";;
	(--load-zwd) FPATH=$1 autoload +X -w $1;;
	(*) print -u2 "don't know $how";;
	esac
    }

} It's very relevant to what degree veterans like yourself use stuff.
} I'd provisionally conclude that if you don't use it, then I don't
} want it.

As I tried to point out, I'm not a very typical user.  I would also
never use Sebastian's navigation tools, or anything from oh-my-zsh;
but that doesn't mean anyone else should avoid them.