From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18516 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2015 22:12:51 -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: 20604 Received: (qmail 703 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2015 22:12:49 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=T/C1EZ6Q c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=Qosx6O6xXGET3N4RHWVm7w==:117 a=Qosx6O6xXGET3N4RHWVm7w==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=fJox3RszEdW1QxaWlt8A:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 Message-id: <55FDDDDE.5000207@eastlink.ca> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:12:46 -0700 From: Ray Andrews User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: autoload References: <55FAE223.2080502@eastlink.ca> <150917103419.ZM10067@torch.brasslantern.com> <150918171441.ZM27212@torch.brasslantern.com> <55FD7982.9030505@eastlink.ca> <150919092922.ZM28214@torch.brasslantern.com> <55FDA5D3.9020304@eastlink.ca> <150919142243.ZM23634@torch.brasslantern.com> In-reply-to: <150919142243.ZM23634@torch.brasslantern.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 09/19/2015 02:22 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > 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. Sure, it wasn't to be taken very seriously, I'm just thinking about the idea that there could be a sort of symmetry between creating a .zwc and then loading one--you could think of them as so related that the command name could be the same. IOW the creation of a .zwc presupposes subsequent use of it the same way that making dinner supposes eating dinner. Command recall would be easier ... but that's never going to happen. I guess the parallel would be 'zip' vs. 'unzip'--we're glad that the names are related. > 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 But ... well, let me try it again, I may have busted something. > } 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. No, OTOH in my judgment typicality is not of great value whereas decades of experience is. Not that I have the slightest hesitation in doing things my own way, but I always want to know what the Old Masters think even if I choose to differ ... until learning better. >