From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28902 invoked from network); 3 May 1999 07:37:01 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 3 May 1999 07:37:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 8808 invoked by alias); 3 May 1999 07:36:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6191 Received: (qmail 8797 invoked from network); 3 May 1999 07:36:27 -0000 Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 09:36:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905030736.JAA28746@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:19:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Somewhere between modules-bltn and zmodload .... Bart Schaefer wrote: > [ about xmods.conf ] > > I think the x is for "extension." (But why isn't modules-bltn called > "bmods.conf" or something? Maybe we should clean all this up, too.) Yes, I think we shoudl. I'm still sometimes guessing which file I have to fiddle with to get what I want. (And I have to guess the name and which vowels are there and which aren't...) > Is is really the right behavior that zmodload go on and unload the rest > of the conditions listed on the command line after one has failed? Or > should it stop when it gets to a failure? I suppose the analogy is to > "rm", but I was a bit surprised by it. [It's the same for removing the other autoloaded things, btw.] I think I like it this way, but then I have used this only when hacking the module code. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de