Re: Nice in-word incremental history word searcher

[Sebastian Gniazdowski <sgniazdowski@gmail.com>]

On 21 January 2016 at 06:32, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
>     --- 8< --- snip --- 8< ---
> 19  local buf="$1"
> 20  local cursor="$CURSOR"
> 21  [ -n "$2" ] && cursor="$2"
> 22
> 23  ZEW_PB_WORDS=( "${(Z+n+)BUFFER}" )
>     --- 8< --- snip --- 8< ---
>
> You could replace lines 20 and 21 with
>
>     local cursor="${2:-$CURSOR}"

Thanks, done that

> Shouldn't line 23 say
>
>     ZEW_PB_WORDS=( "${(Z+n+)buf}" )
>
> ??

True, corrected that, thanks

> And therefore why is line 19 not
>
>     local buf="${1:-$BUFFER}"
>
> ??

Nice idea to have $1 and $2 all optional, done that

> This on line 72:
>
>   [[ "$ZEW_PB_SELECTED_WORD" -eq "-1" && "$char_count" -gt "$cursor" ]]
>
> Could be this:
>
>   (( ZEW_PB_SELECTED_WORD == -1 && char_count > cursor ))

Recently I started to introduce (( )) to conditional expressions,
could replace this to, but comments can nicely refer to "-gt", "-ge"
so I'll leave them as they are

> On line 81, this:
>
>     char_count=char_count+"$#buf"
>
> depends on the zsh semantics of assignment to an declared integer.  It
> might be better to explicitly use math context:
>
>     (( char_count = char_count + $#buf ))
>

I like utilizing integer declaration and then the semantics, rarely
use (( )), if I do then mostly as "integer i=$(( ))" when I need to
assign a value computed with use of parenthesis – "integer i=(a-b)*c"
will return error, doing "0+..." trick doesn't help (it helps when not
declaring but using already declared integer), so I do "integer i=$((
(a-b)*c )). Also, like the *SELECTED_WORD variable, I don't declare
globals as integers, so in such case if computation is needed I use ((
)). This makes some distinctions in code, allows to quickly
differentiate between integers and normal variables / globals. It's
not what I truly planned and I still experiment, but it rather works.

> First, you used the old [ ... ] test everywhere instead of [[ ... ]].
> Any particular reason?

Rather not, I just didn't want to depart from sh too much too fast. I
might switch to [[ ]] after year of testing what pitfalls [ ] can have
(and there are rather none), but on other hand, using [[ ]] only when
it's needed helps reading the code, user can expect simplicity in [ ]
and sophistication in [[ ]]. Is there a reason to always use [[ ?

> Second, I think you've partly missed the point of custom keymaps.  I
> imagine you copied the caps-lock example from the recursive-edit doc,
> but there's actually a better way now (that example could be redone):
>
> Instead of overriding self-insert et al. in the main keymap and then
> restoring them, you can do the same thing as with the zhcw keymap:
> Create (once) a copy of the main keymap, install your new bindings
> for self-insert etc., in that copy, and then when you want to use the
> new keymap, switch to it with "zle -K".

Saw your next email, seems that I could bind backspace and delete, and
leave self-insert as it is.

Best regards,
Sebastian Gniazdowski