From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4627 invoked from network); 22 May 2000 16:53:14 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 22 May 2000 16:53:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 20278 invoked by alias); 22 May 2000 16:53:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11513 Received: (qmail 20270 invoked from network); 22 May 2000 16:53:03 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000522165258.ZM29917@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:52:57 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200005221444.QAA20403@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: PATCH: Re: TAB and PS2 and multiline buffers and vared" (May 22, 4:44pm) References: <200005221444.QAA20403@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: TAB and PS2 and multiline buffers and vared MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 22, 4:44pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: TAB and PS2 and multiline buffers and vared } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } } > On May 22, 1:25pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } > } Subject: PATCH: Re: TAB and PS2 and multiline buffers and vared } > } } > } Bart Schaefer wrote: } > } } > } > The situation is different in vared (again with a multiline buffer). } > } > Sometimes it beeps and then asks me whether I want to see all 2200 } > } > possiblities, other times it just beeps and refuses to insert anything. } > } > Whether it asks or just beeps seems to depend on whether I started out } > } > on vared of a value containing newlines (e.g. vared functions[foo] vs. } > } > vared foo). } > } } > } Hm. Is that with the current CVS version? } > } > Yes. (Well, current at the time I sent the mail.) } } I don't understand why it's completing commands then... Hm. I've just tried comparing zsh with all patches up to but NOT including 11503, against zsh including 11503, and I see no differences between those (maybe 11493 had an effect?). So then I compared zsh including 11503 against zsh patched up to 11471 (e.g. code-wise should be identical to -pre-4). The newer zsh does NOT show the behavior above; the older one does. Since the newer version doesn't have the bad behavior, the following is mainly for information, in case a light bulb goes on above Sven when he sees it. The test case was to run `vared functions[_complete_debug]', scroll up to the line `local w="${(qq)words}"', then type ^E ESC RET to open a line, and begin completing on that line. If I immediately type ^X?, both versions beep at me. Comparing the xtrace output, the ONLY difference shown (other than line numbers) is the value assigned to the _saved_colors local, which is irrelevant. Both versions output the string from _message. If I start the test again from a fresh PS1, but type TAB and then ^X?, zsh-11502 produces the same xtrace as before, but zsh-11471 has this additional fragment: +_main_complete:41:if: [[ tab automenu-unambiguous == tab* && _complete_debug != *list* ]] +_main_complete:42:then cursh: zstyle -T :completion::::: insert-tab +_main_complete:43:then cursh cmdand cursh: [[ ::: != :* || -z functions[_complete_debug] ]] +_main_complete:44:then cursh cmdand cursh cmdor: zstyle -t :completion:vared:::: insert-tab +_main_complete:46:then: compstate[insert]=automenu-unambiguous In this particular test they also both output the message, so I still don't know exact steps to reproduce sending it into command completion. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com