From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28803 invoked from network); 3 May 1999 07:25:34 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 3 May 1999 07:25:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 7165 invoked by alias); 3 May 1999 07:25:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6190 Received: (qmail 7158 invoked from network); 3 May 1999 07:25:20 -0000 Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 09:25:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905030725.JAA27546@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Sun, 2 May 1999 09:34:05 -0700 Subject: Re: zmodload -C ?? Bart Schaefer wrote: > In making up the patch for the zmodload changes I suggested a few days ago, > I ran across code that appears to accept a -C option ... but it's not listed > in the builtin.c definition of the zmodload call signature, so AFAIK it > can't ever actually be passed to bin_zmodload(). I've forgotten what it > was for (if it ever was for anything) and the only effect it seems to have > is to behave almost-but-not-quite the same as -c. > > Should I just delete it? Ugh. Seems to be a remnant of my thinking about using -c for prefix- and -C for infix condition codes (or something like that, I don't remember exactly). Yes, please, if you are building a patch for module.c anyway, could you just remove it? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de