Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Zefram]

>! versions of complex commands should be considered deprecated and may be 
>--- 612,618 ----
>! versions of complex commands should be considered depreciated and may be 

You might want to reverse this patch for the 3.0 release.  The same
error was made in a couple of other places too.

Less trivially, if you haven't done so already, I suggest you look
through my old -M patches.  Some of them contained small bug fixes in
addition to adding the option, and I think some of the bugs are still
around.

-zefram

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Zoltan Hidvegi]

> >! versions of complex commands should be considered deprecated and may be 
> >--- 612,618 ----
> >! versions of complex commands should be considered depreciated and may be 
> 
> You might want to reverse this patch for the 3.0 release.  The same
> error was made in a couple of other places too.

It's not me who made this change.  This comes from Clive's texinfo
documentation.  ispell says that depreciate is correct.  I assume it has
the same meaning as deprecate.  I do not know enough about English to
decide which is better.

> Less trivially, if you haven't done so already, I suggest you look
> through my old -M patches.  Some of them contained small bug fixes in
> addition to adding the option, and I think some of the bugs are still
> around.

I'm still thinking about adding some or all of them to the baseline.  POSIX
requires export -p and readonly -p.  But I do not find any patches to
typeset.  Did I lost it or you'v never sent such a patch?

Zoltan

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Zefram]

>It's not me who made this change.  This comes from Clive's texinfo
>documentation.  ispell says that depreciate is correct.  I assume it has
>the same meaning as deprecate.  I do not know enough about English to
>decide which is better.

"depreciate" and "deprecate" are both valid English words.  They have
completely different meanings, and the appropriate one here is
"deprecate".

>I'm still thinking about adding some or all of them to the baseline.  POSIX
>requires export -p and readonly -p.  But I do not find any patches to
>typeset.  Did I lost it or you'v never sent such a patch?

I've not done a typeset -M patch yet.  I was planning to wait until the
ones I've sent so far have got in.  I have a list of builtins waiting
to have this option added, but while the patches aren't being used
there's not much point working on it.

Btw, the reason I haven't sent any patches in the last couple of weeks
is that my computer is not in a very usable state right now.  The
graphics card is sulking, and the serial card is only sending data in
one direction (out).  This means that I can do the minimal admin tasks
needed to configure the software side of the serial I/O, but it's not
very conducive to editing source.  :-)  I should be back in action
within a week.

-zefram

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Wayne Davison]

Zefram writes:
> "depreciate" and "deprecate" are both valid English words.  They have
> completely different meanings, and the appropriate one here is
> "deprecate".

The words are different, but not "completely" different (in my dictionary
one of the definitions for deprecate says "To belittle; depreciate").

However, I have never heard of deprecate being used in the cited context,
while I have heard depreciate used many times in similar circumstances.
I believe that depreciate is the better choice.

It is interesting to note that the word deprecate was at one time much
stronger than depreciate (it meant to deplore not just to devalue), but
that common usage is moving it toward the meaning of depreciate.  Thus
either word is probably OK, but depreciate is more traditional.

..wayne..

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Zefram]

>The words are different, but not "completely" different (in my dictionary
>one of the definitions for deprecate says "To belittle; depreciate").

They do have a common root.  However, I think the above definition of
deprecate is misleading.

>It is interesting to note that the word deprecate was at one time much
>stronger than depreciate (it meant to deplore not just to devalue), but

That's the meaning we want.

>that common usage is moving it toward the meaning of depreciate.  Thus
>either word is probably OK, but depreciate is more traditional.

No.  In this context, the term used in standards documents is deprecate.

-zefram

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Geoff Wing]

:Zefram writes:
:> "depreciate" and "deprecate" are both valid English words.  They have
:> completely different meanings, and the appropriate one here is
:> "deprecate".
:The words are different, but not "completely" different (in my dictionary
:one of the definitions for deprecate says "To belittle; depreciate").

:However, I have never heard of deprecate being used in the cited context,
:while I have heard depreciate used many times in similar circumstances.
:I believe that depreciate is the better choice.

Don't want to turn this list into a language debate but deprecate is the
desired meaning and I come across it used this way quite a lot in the
computer world.  And in my interpretation they mean completely different
things here.

BTW, I only had the "cd BUG in doshfunc" bug (which Zoltan's sent a patch
for) show with chpwd() set to do something.
-- 
Mason [G.C.W]  mason@werple.mira.net.au    "Hurt...Agony...Pain...LOVE-IT"

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Clive Messer]

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Zefram wrote:

> >It's not me who made this change.  This comes from Clive's texinfo
> >documentation.  ispell says that depreciate is correct.  I assume it has
> >the same meaning as deprecate.  I do not know enough about English to
> >decide which is better.
> 
> "depreciate" and "deprecate" are both valid English words.  They have
> completely different meanings, and the appropriate one here is
> "deprecate".

Yikes. I'm sorry. ;-)

(And you thought I was kidding when I asked if American Engish or British
English was to be preferred. :-)

Anyway, my 'working' copy of zsh.texi has changed much since the version
you are looking at (including many more spelling fixes) but currently has
too many tags and FIXME's for a patch to be posted right now, having taken
on board many of Bart's comments.  
I have a couple of days before 3.0 is released ?

Clive.
-- 
C Messer. Epos Systems. UK.  |
<clive@epos.demon.co.uk>     |   "I pressed her thigh and death smiled."
<clive@epos.easynet.co.uk>   |    Jim Morrison.                       

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Zoltan Hidvegi]

Clive wrote:
> I have a couple of days before 3.0 is released ?

Yes certainly.  You have a couple of weeks I think.

Zoltan

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[Swen Thuemmler]

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote:

> There are many bugfixes in this release.  This is a pre-release of the
> next production release, zsh-3.0.0.

Hi,
I've installed the new zsh, and now I get

BUG: permanent allocation in doshfunc

when I define chpwd(). The following patch does fix this, but may not be
optimal or correct:

--- zsh-3.0-pre1/Src/builtin.c~	Fri Jun 28 15:43:49 1996
+++ zsh-3.0-pre1/Src/builtin.c	Fri Jun 28 23:36:09 1996
@@ -1269,7 +1269,13 @@
     if ((l = getshfunc("chpwd"))) {
 	fflush(stdout);
 	fflush(stderr);
-	doshfunc(dupstruct(l), NULL, 0, 1);
+	if (useheap)
+	    doshfunc(dupstruct(l), NULL, 0, 1);
+	else {
+	    heapalloc();
+	    doshfunc(dupstruct(l), NULL, 0, 1);
+	    permalloc();
+	}
     }
 
     /* handle directory stack sizes out of range */


Hope this helps.

--Swen

Re: zsh-3.0-pre1 released

[whukriede]

Hi! Webster's Dictionary says:

-------------------- deprecate

dep.re.cate ['dep-ri-,keit] vt -cat*ed; -cat*ing
(1641)
[L deprecatus, pp. of deprecari to avert by prayer, fr. de- + precari to
    pray -- more at PRAY]

1: to express disapproval of
2a: to play down  make little of <deprecated their own success>
2b: BELITTLE, DISPARAGE
-- dep*re*cat*ing*ly [-,keit-iN-li:] adv
-- dep*re*ca*tion [,dep-ri-'kei-sh9n] n

* THESAURUS *

deprecate vb
syn DISAPPROVE 1, discommend, discountenance, disesteem, disfavor, frown,
    object
rel bemoan, bewail, deplore, lament; derogate, detract
ant endorse

-------------------- depreciate

de.pre.ci.ate [di-'pri:-shi:-,eit] vb -at*ed; -at*ing
(15c)
[LL depretiatus, pp. of depretiare, fr. L de- + pretium price -- more at
    PRICE]
vt
1: to lower in estimation or esteem
2: to lower the price or estimated value of
depreciate vi: to fall in value

Usage: syn see DECRY
-- de*pre*cia*ble [-sh9-b9l] adj
-- de*pre*ci*at*ing*ly [-shi:-,eit-iN-li:] adv
-- de*pre*ci*a*tion [-,pri:-shi:-'ei-sh9n] n
-- de*pre*ci*a*tive [-'pri:-sh9t-iv, -shi:-,eit-iv] adj
-- de*pre*ci*a*tor [-shi:-,eit-9r] n
-- de*pre*cia*to*ry [-sh9-,tour-i:, -,to:r-] adj

* THESAURUS *

depreciate vb
1 to reduce the value of   (depreciate the dol+FH lar)
syn cheapen, decry, devalorize, devaluate, devalue, downgrade, lower, mark
    down, soften, underprize, underrate, undervalue, write down, write off
rel depress; abate, decrease, diminish, dwindle, lessen, reduce; erode
con augment, increase; bloat, blow up, expand, inflate; amplify, magniy
ant appreciate
2 syn DECRY 2, abuse, belittle, derogate, detract (from), diminish,
    discount, disparage, dispraise, minimize
rel underestimate, underrate, undervalue; discountenance, disesteem,
    disfavor
con cherish, prize, treasure, value; comprehend, understand
ant appreciate

--------------------

I'd think, deprecate is definitly right here.

Greetings, Wolfgang.