From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16616 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2003 19:14:00 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 Oct 2003 19:14:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 10819 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2003 19:13:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6710 Received: (qmail 10775 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2003 19:13:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Oct 2003 19:13:30 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [62.193.203.32] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 15 Oct 2003 19:13:30 -0000 Received: from DervishD.pleyades.net (212.Red-80-35-44.pooles.rima-tde.net [80.35.44.212]) by madrid10.amenworld.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h9FJDQ211886; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:13:26 +0200 Received: from raul@pleyades.net by DervishD.pleyades.net with local (Exim MTA 2.05) id <1A9qsO-0000N1-00>; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:00:04 +0200 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:00:04 +0200 From: DervishD To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh-users@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Is this an orthodox use of zstyle? Message-ID: <20031015190004.GD1274@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: Bart Schaefer , zsh-users@sunsite.dk References: <20031014160041.GA343@DervishD> <1031014164250.ZM22562@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031014171741.GG211@DervishD> <1031015062143.ZM23223@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031015095427.GN867@DervishD> <1031015151521.ZM23749@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1031015151521.ZM23749@candle.brasslantern.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Pleyades User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Hi Bart :) * Bart Schaefer dixit: > } A last point: maybe I'm missing something, but I think that the > } entire zstyle thing can be done with parameters (with exception of > } the -e option, maybe). > Yes, you could write "zstyle" as a shell function. There are a number > of parts of the completion system that could be written as functions, > but that were coded (or re-coded) in C for speed. I'm not going to do that, anyway ;)) I was just guessing. The fact is that although you can implement a bunch of builtins as shell code, it's usually faster, safer, etc... to write them in C. > there's something else you could use to store state, by the way. > Even slower than styles, but sharable across multiple shells. What's that? ;)) Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado -- Linux Registered User 88736 http://www.pleyades.net & http://raul.pleyades.net/