From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20039 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2016 05:07:58 -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: 21754 Received: (qmail 6638 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2016 05:07:58 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from hermes.apache.org by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(140.211.11.3):SA:0(-1.3/5.0):. Processed in 0.116831 secs); 13 Jul 2016 05:07:58 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: danielsh@apache.org X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at apache.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 05:01:02 +0000 From: Daniel Shahaf To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: Next release (5.3) Message-ID: <20160713050102.GA23451@tarsus.local2> References: <160707102031.ZM23611@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160712075849.GG1537__20664.8654224866$1468310440$gmane$org@isis.sigpipe.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160712075849.GG1537__20664.8654224866$1468310440$gmane$org@isis.sigpipe.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Roman Neuhauser wrote on Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:58:49 +0200: > # schaefer@brasslantern.com / 2016-07-07 10:20:31 -0700: > > But that's only because I've not worked out a case where I want anything > > different. It's too difficult to come up with a categorical answer because > > it depends whether the user is used to CHASE_BLAH behaviour (I'm not > > suggesting option-specific behaviour, either). > > Has anyone brought up any realistic (as in: I'm going to use it for > such-and-such) scenario for these CHASE_FOO-related variations? > It looks like you're spending energy on something no one has any use for. Not that I know of. The behaviour of :A was originally reported as a bug downstream (debian bug #607615 by Vincent), but that ticket does not refer to CHASE_*. Cheers, Daniel > -- > roman >