From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6862 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 18:40:26 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 18:40:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 20101 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2000 18:40:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9962 Received: (qmail 20074 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 18:40:19 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000301184015.ZM11824@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:40:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1000301182139.ZM11795@candle.brasslantern.com> Comments: In reply to "Bart Schaefer" "PATCH: Misc. module stuff" (Mar 1, 6:21pm) References: <1000301182139.ZM11795@candle.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: Misc. module stuff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 1, 6:21pm, Bart Schaefer wrote: } } the %prep section of 53completion.ztst. By the way, when I added 51xtrace.ztst it was not my intention to start a trend. I think most tests should be numbered *before* 50cd.ztst -- the only reason I chose 51 for xtrace is that it isn't testing an actual programming construct or user interaction. The tests from 01* to 10* are sort of marching their way through the manual checking features of major sections -- for which completion certainly qualifies, even if zregex does not -- and I didn't want to interrupt that sequence with something as low-profile as xtrace. So at some point I think that at least the completion test ought to get renamed to a lower number. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com