From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2455 invoked from network); 15 Dec 1998 12:05:50 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 Dec 1998 12:05:50 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id HAA05111; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:04:56 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:04:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:03:19 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199812151203.NAA10980@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:42:07 -0800 Subject: Re: wrapper functions in modules Resent-Message-ID: <"rCF5O2.0.oF1.e1bTs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4800 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Bart Schaefer wrote: > ... > > Is the new first parameter of doshfunc() needed any longer? runshfunc() > doesn't do anything with it except pass it to wrap->handler(), and at > least in the example module the handler doesn't do anything with it but > pass it back to runshfunc() again. Why are we slinging this around? [For those who don't want to look at the code: the argument is the name of the function to be executed.] I added the argument since modules may be interested in it and there may be no other way to get at this information (depending on FUNCTIONARGZERO). The example uses it in the call to strncmp(). Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de