From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10021 invoked from network); 6 Dec 1996 08:57:14 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 6 Dec 1996 08:57:14 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA27056; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 03:45:38 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 03:45:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612060846.JAA27041@hydra.ifh.de> To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: a plan for ZLE extendability In-reply-to: "Zefram"'s message of "Thu, 05 Dec 1996 16:04:48 MET." <638.199612051604@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 09:46:17 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Resent-Message-ID: <"weVuM2.0.hc6.nqzfo"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2541 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Zefram wrote: > The syntax I am currently leaning towards would have > > zle -h > > to push a special thingy, {h}iding the rest of the stack; normal > thingies could also be specified, so > > zle -h get-key > > would push a special thingy and then push and execute get-key. The > result would be the key read as the only visible thingy on the stack; > after that had been popped, the special thingy could be popped. Is > this close enough to what you had in mind? Yup, from the user point of view that's pretty much how I was thinking. -- Peter Stephenson Tel: +49 33762 77366 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Fax: +49 33762 77413 Deutches Electronen-Synchrotron --- Institut fuer Hochenergiephysik Zeuthen DESY-IfH, 15735 Zeuthen, Germany.