From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14973 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2009 23:50:56 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Feb 2009 23:50:56 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 44672 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2009 23:50:50 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 11 Feb 2009 23:50:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 2368 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2009 23:50:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26557 Received: (qmail 2358 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2009 23:50:44 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 11 Feb 2009 23:50:44 -0000 Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net (vms173017pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.17]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72CE80271F0 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:50:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from torch.brasslantern.com ([96.238.220.215]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KEX003GLDLWLBH0@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for zsh-workers@sunsite.dk; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:37:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from torch.brasslantern.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1BNbxUp008683 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:38:00 -0800 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id n1BNbwDt008682 for zsh-workers@sunsite.dk; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:37:58 -0800 From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <090211153758.ZM8681@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:37:58 -0800 In-reply-to: <20090211202840.000b37aa@pws-pc> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: PATCH: sticky emulation" (Feb 11, 8:28pm) References: <18952.1234307021@pws-pc> <090210191804.ZM7110@torch.brasslantern.com> <20090211202840.000b37aa@pws-pc> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: sticky emulation MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8980/Wed Feb 11 17:40:45 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean On Feb 11, 8:28pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } > What about zcompiled functions? Obviously there's no special case for } > them, but their treatment may be worth explanation at doc time. } } I've done that. I guess I'm specifically interested in what happens with "zcompile -c" which takes a function already defined in the shell and writes it out compiled. Suppose this is used on a function with sticky emulation. If the compiled form is then reloaded, is it still sticky?