From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5658 invoked by alias); 17 May 2017 22:43:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 41121 Received: (qmail 1412 invoked from network); 17 May 2017 22:43:16 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-ua0-f173.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(209.85.217.173):SA:0(-0.0/5.0):. Processed in 1.074971 secs); 17 May 2017 22:43:16 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: schaefer@brasslantern.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _netblocks.google.com designates 209.85.217.173 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brasslantern-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments:references:to:subject :mime-version; bh=NKPJ0rj8nrizykIHu1Jhrl3+SyfZ/x3yqYbPgZ3Cx9Q=; b=nzRvJAFpzfLmjeUuz1tM9cX29Y0Vszymy15Cx7l76G6l1Ueve1PK7j0m6EVsZLXVbT TyUBGX8dAIutCMJ5BcSqkV2UsziHcayXnm6EW2nRsOcxLF06c6TVc1zQha/OrsGjvWQ5 ieUHCdQ5g+hfByCWhgfsTeEItUNs+1nxu/RjpaqgN12OPNsE801yMsMz7bdT7KwFWkX1 BhM8jnOul0Yh7YIjmmOLnCQpRTIrANVwhdgtHbb26hTTlAg+lBxSlndBsCi28NdG+RYl 99WMvVoO84BhRpFmzNsAjFlewrbnoFb09wwaOz0AOFcGSdHa03lbV5B1m84N51tvYc7E HfHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments :references:to:subject:mime-version; bh=NKPJ0rj8nrizykIHu1Jhrl3+SyfZ/x3yqYbPgZ3Cx9Q=; b=M/RHBbZXUQbzrJo8ESViis5VKWJYlD0FvAP6z+AKORKM6dImF6fp7/Lv/ijhMWdKe6 riBUgOmJN1qFFO+MqYJ/B6AgQ/KjP94sdNg2VfzXLfzpwP6kRQ4429kfNFY22DV6vrHo Ggr/EQmUqYWSg3MuZ9pZLh1RTxt3HjH15NR9I5THMxj4iasDzLU6onDa0rZ6aGjT+Wpf XwTB+6j/RZdw6ZdY72hOP7ovbxPCNZ/urOq72XYXQHoX/GvEAs5atfrvtpBbNPUXkMWS DeFDajl7wx9KrroUpIyrx/PYsLAyoFxCOtU1o8fPfNrYT25006UR/3Tbq3v+5aibOKCe lazQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD4KW79EgAB2i4IQ1Bstq11MCNBTSrBDKUd2reIEDsA8VTz/+10 H8JpMVNkbtmrwMxTs3g= X-Received: by 10.176.68.103 with SMTP id m94mr235618uam.127.1495060988907; Wed, 17 May 2017 15:43:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <170517154337.ZM27772@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:43:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to Sebastian Gniazdowski "Re: Naive question: how hard are namespaces for functions" (May 17, 4:20pm) References: X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: Naive question: how hard are namespaces for functions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 17, 4:20pm, Sebastian Gniazdowski wrote: } } Maybe namespaces are easy? This depends entirely on what you mean by "namespaces". Voluntarily naming functions with an identifiable prefix string is easy. Calling those functions by a name other than the full name with the prefix string is probably of middling difficulty, but would require some sort of collision resolution if the same suffix appeared with two or more prefixes. Dividing $functions (or any hash parameter value) up into named sections that the shell somehow understands natively, is very difficult. I'm not following what this would have to do with how long it takes to load function definitions.