From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1486 invoked from network); 24 Apr 1999 06:23:49 -0000 Received: from ns2.primenet.com.au (HELO primenet.com.au) (203.24.36.3) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 Apr 1999 06:23:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 4590 invoked from network); 24 Apr 1999 03:13:42 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by 203.24.36.3 with SMTP; 24 Apr 1999 03:13:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 24053 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 1999 03:11:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6087 Received: (qmail 24044 invoked from network); 24 Apr 1999 03:11:21 -0000 Message-Id: <199904240311.XAA00619@ocalhost> Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Image-URL: http://www.peak.org/~luomat/luomat@peak.org.tiff In-Reply-To: <199904231059.MAA32358@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Timothy J Luoma Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:11:06 -0400 To: Sven Wischnowsky Subject: Re: yet another undesired 3.1.5-pws-15 change cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk References: <199904231059.MAA32358@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Replying to message of Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:59:46 +0200 (MET DST) from Sven Wischnowsky regarding ``Re: yet another undesired 3.1.5-pws-15 change'' > > ps -- there seem to be a LOT of these types of changes in 3.1.5.... > > Please name them, because... OK, I will make sure to mention them. Earlier OLDPWD didn't behave the same way (it seems to now though) There's still a problem with my PROMPT: PROMPT=' ---------------------------------------- %t/%T ---------------------------------------- %S[OLDPWD: $OLDPWD] [PWD: %~]%s %B%n$LOCAL_HOST%b $REMOTE_HOST ' it produces an extra blank line at the end (unlike 3.1.4) > > I wish there were more consideration given to keeping things > > consistent for those who upgrade... changing the way things > > behave and making the user reconfigure everything is not a good > > thing... > > ...of course, we (w.r.t. the completion code: I) tried to keep the old > behavior, but there were a lot of changes in the code needed for the > new features (and there are many of them) and so I didn't manage to do > so in some cases. It was my misunderstanding then. From some offlist replies I got to earlier comments, it sounded like "Things change, get over it." I realize now that I should have guessed they were not the voice of authority. > As for your other message: I need some more help here since I can't > reproduce it. Can you complete the names that don't appear in the > list? By giving an unambiguous prefix? Only with menucompletion? This > is NextStep (right?): did you get any compiler warnings in > Zle/zle_tricky.c? (Weird question, but I have no idea how what you > described can happen...) I don't remember any warnings... well, there were warnings, but I don't remember what they were. I cannot solve it by giving unambiguous filenames: # ls / CDROM/ Users/ mach_kernel LocalApps@ bin/ mach_kernel.OS42 LocalLibrary@ dev@ mach_kernel.nonY2K Net/ drives/ private/ NextAdmin/ etc@ tmp@ NextApps/ lib/ usr/ NextDeveloper@ lost+found/ NextLibrary/ mach@ (note there is only one "/U") # ls /U[tab] # ls /U # ls /drives/ IBM3/ win95/ # ls /drives/I[tab] # ls /drives/I NOTE: I can't build zsh again, I keep getting errors about files that end with .pro not existing (ie prompt.pro) and it dies. I don't know how I did it before. TjL