Re: completion test suggestion

Re: completion test suggestion

[Sven Wischnowsky]

I wrote:

>     [[ -after str ]] ->     if (( rangebeg(str) < CURRENT )); then
>                               shift 'string(str)' words 
> 
>                                 (or: words=(${(@)words[string(str),-1]}"))

Plus the modification of `CURRENT' of course:

                                (( CURRENT -= string(str)-1 ))

Sorry.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de

3.0.6?

[Jos Backus]

Are there any plans to release a (final?) stable 3.0.6 distribution, given
that all new development seems to be happening along the 3.1.x branch
nowadays?

Thanks,
-- 
Jos Backus                          _/  _/_/_/    "Reliability means never
                                   _/  _/   _/     having to say you're sorry."
                                  _/  _/_/_/               -- D. J. Bernstein
                             _/  _/  _/    _/
Jos.Backus@nl.origin-it.com  _/_/   _/_/_/        use Std::Disclaimer;

Re: 3.0.6?

[Peter Stephenson]

Jos Backus wrote:
> Are there any plans to release a (final?) stable 3.0.6 distribution, given
> that all new development seems to be happening along the 3.1.x branch
> nowadays?

If there was a development coordinator, this would definitely be a good
idea, since some of the bugs are quite sizeable, and there is a set of
patches to do it.  Unfortunately there's no one around to make releases at
the moment.  I've no idea when he's likely to come back.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@ibmth.df.unipi.it>       Tel: +39 050 844536
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/
Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy

Re: 3.0.6?

[Jos Backus]

On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 02:04:49PM +0100, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> If there was a development coordinator, this would definitely be a good
> idea, since some of the bugs are quite sizeable, and there is a set of
> patches to do it.  Unfortunately there's no one around to make releases at
> the moment.  I've no idea when he's likely to come back.

Hm, that's too bad. Any pointers as to where the current patch set for 3.0.5
can be found?

And thanks to all of you for keeping zsh development alive. 3.2(?) looks very
promising.

Cheers,
-- 
Jos Backus                          _/  _/_/_/    "Reliability means never
                                   _/  _/   _/     having to say you're sorry."
                                  _/  _/_/_/               -- D. J. Bernstein
                             _/  _/  _/    _/
Jos.Backus@nl.origin-it.com  _/_/   _/_/_/        use Std::Disclaimer;

Re: 3.0.6?

[Greg Badros]

Peter Stephenson <pws@ibmth.df.unipi.it> writes:

> Jos Backus wrote:
> > Are there any plans to release a (final?) stable 3.0.6 distribution, given
> > that all new development seems to be happening along the 3.1.x branch
> > nowadays?
> 
> If there was a development coordinator, this would definitely be a good
> idea, since some of the bugs are quite sizeable, and there is a set of
> patches to do it.  Unfortunately there's no one around to make releases at
> the moment.  I've no idea when he's likely to come back.

It seems to me that zsh work is a bit undirected for exactly this lack of a
coordinator doing releases.  Can I propose that someone volunteer to put 
together a 3.0.6 release, and someone (perhaps else) step forward to be
the 3.1.x maintainer?

Greg J. Badros
gjb@cs.washington.edu
Seattle, WA  USA
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/gjb

Re: 3.0.6?

[Jos Backus]

On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 02:59:03PM -0800, Greg Badros wrote:
> Can I propose that someone volunteer to put together a 3.0.6 release,

I wonder how much work this would be. It would definitely help with keeping
zsh on the radar screen.

Maybe a very short final testing period would be a good idea after rolling a
candidate release, too.

> and someone (perhaps else) step forward to be the 3.1.x maintainer?

/me ducks :-)

Seriously, I consider myself to be rather underqualified for this task, sorry.

Cheers,
-- 
Jos Backus                          _/  _/_/_/    "Reliability means never
                                   _/  _/   _/     having to say you're sorry."
                                  _/  _/_/_/               -- D. J. Bernstein
                             _/  _/  _/    _/
Jos.Backus@nl.origin-it.com  _/_/   _/_/_/        use Std::Disclaimer;

Re: 3.0.6?

[Geoff Wing]

Jos Backus <Jos.Backus@nl.origin-it.com> typed:
:On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 02:59:03PM -0800, Greg Badros wrote:
:> Can I propose that someone volunteer to put together a 3.0.6 release,
:I wonder how much work this would be. It would definitely help with keeping
:zsh on the radar screen.

I believe the most suitable person for a 3.0.6 release would be Bart since
I think only he has kept up to date with patches for 3.0.5 - and has been
adapting bugfixes for 3.1.5 back to 3.0.5 .  Everyone else seems to be
concentrating on 3.1.5-pws-? (except for the new completion which only
Sven, Peter and Bart seem to have looked at in depth - arghhh, I need more
hours in the week; actually, more hours in the week where I won't do
work.  Can anyone point me to a summary of the current completion language
or is the manual up-to-date?)

As for 3.1.6 - that branch is probably still too fast moving at the moment.
Though given it is a beta branch....

What is the news on Zefram?  Does he still have access to his fysh.org
account?

:Maybe a very short final testing period would be a good idea after rolling a
:candidate release, too.

Well, maybe not too short.
-- 
Geoff Wing   <gcw@pobox.com>            Mobile : (Australia) 0412 162 441
Work URL: http://www.primenet.com.au/   Ego URL: http://pobox.com/~gcw/

Re: 3.0.6?

[Bart Schaefer]

Geoff Wing writes:
 > I believe the most suitable person for a 3.0.6 release would be Bart

Thanks; however, Bart is pretty well tied up through the end of March.
If someone else wants to base a release on my patches, I can try to be
sure the files at ftp.brasslantern.com:/pub/zsh are up to date (they
should be pretty close right now).  I won't be able to do that until
the weekend, though.

One big thing missing from the patches I've collected are documentation
changes.  There must be yodl sources for the 3.0 manual *somewhere*, but
they've never been included in any release.

Re: 3.0.6?

[Phil Pennock]

Sorry for the delay in replying.  Busy with work and stuff.  Almost
caught up on zsh-mail ...

Typing away merrily, Geoff Wing produced the immortal words:
> What is the news on Zefram?  Does he still have access to his fysh.org
> account?

It seems that he does now.

The last information I had was that he doesn't even have a telephone
line into the house where he now lives, and since he went contracting,
doesn't have work-access to zsh anymore.

Fairly recently, he hadn't checked email in a few months, however I just
looked and his mailbox has shrunk considerably and:

crucigera% finger zefram
Login: zefram         			Name: Andrew Main
Last login Fri Mar  5 15:59 (GMT) on ttype from [censored - Phil]
New mail received Mon Mar  8 23:17 1999 (GMT)
     Unread since Fri Mar  5 16:02 1999 (GMT)
No Plan.

(crucigera.fysh.org is just about all of fysh.org)

*shrugs*
-- 
--> Phil Pennock ; GAT d- s+:+ a23 C++(++++) UL++++/I+++/S+++/B++/H+$ P++@$
L+++ E-@ W(+) N>++ o !K w--- O>+ M V !PS PE Y+ PGP+ t-- 5++ X+ R !tv b++>+++
DI+ D+ G+ e+ h* r y?

Re: 3.0.6?

[Phil Pennock]

Typing away merrily, Phil Pennock produced the immortal words:
[snip zefram information]

Bleurgh.  I did look ahead for anything from him.  I guess that I'm just
blind and didn't notice his announcement.

Sorry to be lowering the signal/noise ratio like that/this.  :^(
-- 
--> Phil Pennock ; GAT d- s+:+ a23 C++(++++) UL++++/I+++/S+++/B++/H+$ P++@$
L+++ E-@ W(+) N>++ o !K w--- O>+ M V !PS PE Y+ PGP+ t-- 5++ X+ R !tv b++>+++
DI+ D+ G+ e+ h* r y?

Re: completion test suggestion

[Sven Wischnowsky]

Bart Schaefer wrote:

> Sven Wischnowsky writes:
>  > In mathematical environments you can use expressions like
>  > `foo(x,y)'.
> 
> The problem that I have with this is that I don't know whether the value
> of the function is its exit status or its standard output.  To behave
> like a unix tool (say, `expr`) you'd want to capture its output and use
> that; but if it's a shell function it'd be much easier to capture its
> exit status (no fork/read required).  But then the truth/falsehood of
> zero/nonzero exit status is reversed in math context, which is really
> confusing.

I thought about using the return value or the value of a parameter,
the function sets (`REPLY'?). But we needn't allow shell functions
here (or add this later). If we have only builtin (in the base or in
modules) functions this isn't a problem.

> The other difficulty is that you have to call the function twice (or
> call two different functions) to produce the start and end values of a
> range, if what you want is some slice of $words.

Compared to a parameter expansion in a subscript this would still be
faster, I think (if that is the problem you mean).


Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de

Re: completion test suggestion

[Bart Schaefer]

Sven Wischnowsky writes:
 > In mathematical environments you can use expressions like
 > `foo(x,y)'.

The problem that I have with this is that I don't know whether the value
of the function is its exit status or its standard output.  To behave
like a unix tool (say, `expr`) you'd want to capture its output and use
that; but if it's a shell function it'd be much easier to capture its
exit status (no fork/read required).  But then the truth/falsehood of
zero/nonzero exit status is reversed in math context, which is really
confusing.

The other difficulty is that you have to call the function twice (or
call two different functions) to produce the start and end values of a
range, if what you want is some slice of $words.

I guess I could live with this if we can't come up with anything better,
but I'd still like to try to come up with something better.

Re: completion test suggestion

[Sven Wischnowsky]

I wrote:

> To make this more friendly to the eye, we could also keep the
> condition codes and make them non-modifying:
> 
>     if [[ -between s1 s2 ]]; then
>       words=("${(@)words[rangebeg(s1,s2),rangeend(s1,s2)]}")
> 
> and so on.

After thinking more about this: for this example the test
`(( -rangebeg(s1,s2) ))' should already be enough. For other tests we
could just add some helpful functions, e.g. `prefix(s1,s2)' which
returns the length of the common prefix of both strings and so
on. Such functions may be helpful in writing shell functions that do
matching anyway and with a good set of such functions we could put all 
tests together in one `(( ... ))'.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de

completion test suggestion

[Sven Wischnowsky]

I was thinking about Bart's suggestion yesterday, as a reminder:

  ${comptest[ignored(-)]}

Where the `ignored(-)' is a special kind of pattern. And this
`special' is what I didn't really like about it. But then finally it
reminded me of something I had in one of my private versions some
years ago: functions in mathematical environments. I had used a C-like 
syntax (of course). So why not use that? It would go like this:

In mathematical environments you can use expressions like
`foo(x,y)'. This will invoke the function `foo' and give it the
arguments `x' and `y'. The function can be a shell function or one
defined by a module. In modules they can cause the module to be
autoloaded. This would also be one step further to implementing
anything ksh can and once we have support for floating point
arithmetic, we could have a module `math' which gives access to the
functions from the math library and things like that (considering the
floating point stuff we probably should use the parameter `REPLY' in
shell functions to report the result instead of using `return ...').

In the completion code we would have (only for the complicated tests)
the non-modifying functions:

    [[ -string str ]] ->    if (( string(str) > 0 )); then
                              IPREFIX="${IPREFIX}${PREFIX[1,string(str)-1]}"
			      PREFIX="${PREFIX[string(str),-1]}"

  ...the same for `-class'

    [[ -after str ]] ->     if (( rangebeg(str) < CURRENT )); then
                              shift 'string(str)' words 

                                (or: words=(${(@)words[string(str),-1]}"))

  ...always doing matching (no `-mafter')

    [[ -between s1 s2 ]] -> if (( rangebeg(s1,s2) < CURRENT &&
                                  rangeend(s1,s2) > CURRENT )); then
                              words=("${(@)words[rangebeg(s1,s2),rangeend(s1,s2)]}")

In real life there would be better names for these functions, all
beginning with `comp' (any suggestions?).

To make this more friendly to the eye, we could also keep the
condition codes and make them non-modifying:

    if [[ -between s1 s2 ]]; then
      words=("${(@)words[rangebeg(s1,s2),rangeend(s1,s2)]}")

and so on.

Then we would only have to tell the users that mathematical
expressions now support functions which shouldn't be too
surprising. Otherwise there would be no special casing, no weird
specialised pattern syntax, almost no magic.

Oh well, if noone stops me soon, I may get really exited about this.


Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de