From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13610 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2001 11:29:50 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 22 Oct 2001 11:29:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 1792 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2001 11:29:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16106 Received: (qmail 1769 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2001 11:29:43 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15316.806.28762.457890@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:29:42 +0200 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: zrecompile not verbose enough on failure? In-Reply-To: <1011022015957.ZM15484@candle.brasslantern.com> References: <20011021214251.A31530@thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk> <1011022015957.ZM15484@candle.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under 21.1 (patch 3) "Acadia" XEmacs Lucid Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Oct 21, 9:42pm, Adam Spiers wrote: > } > } Why does zrecompile redirect STDERR to /dev/null when running > } zcompile? > > Probably to suppress warning-only messages like > > zcompile: functions will use zsh style autoloading > > because zrecompile is intended to run unobtrusively from a .zshrc or the > like; but I agree that it would be nice to see more of the *real* failure > messages from zcompile. Should we make it depend on the -q option? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de