From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21688 invoked from network); 22 Jun 1999 10:35:31 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 22 Jun 1999 10:35:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 14264 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 1999 10:35:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6781 Received: (qmail 14257 invoked from network); 22 Jun 1999 10:35:20 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:35:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199906221035.MAA24589@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Peter Stephenson's message of Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:51:43 +0200 Subject: Re: PATCH: collist v2.0 Peter Stephenson wrote: > It's hard to know what to do. You don't expect to be able to set an option > only when a module is loaded, so I don't think we can have module-dependent > options. But zle related options are in the main shell even if zle isn't > loaded. Maybe we just have to make it an option (menuselect, obviously) > anyway and make a bigger effort to load complist when necessary, so you > would get an error from completion the first time if it's not available. We can make modules autoloadable on options -- triggered by (|un)setopt. But then there is still the problem with local options and all that... > - some new options will list all modules or builtin modules. This is > probably better but the problem is that with a non-dynamically-linked > shell you always get no output from running `zmodload' on its own which > is a little Zen-like. Maybe it should return status 1 in that case as a > test for dynamic loading, but status 0 when the list includes builtin > modules. I'd vote for using the exit status and even let these list-options accept optional arguments. With arguments they just check if the modules named are loaded (or can be loaded?). > And I still think the zle command needs the ability to list builtin > widgets, too. Definitely, yes -- see 6775. > One other thing: I'm still a bit worried about the way undo works, where > the first time nothing happens if there isn't a suffix to undo. It's fine > if there is a suffix which you can undo separately, but I'd be tempted to > make it skip over that if it does nothing. That would make it harder if > you used undo in programming, however, but I don't think people do. Maybe an option to undo saying if you want to skip `invisible' undos or not? > I've done this and I'll try and get pws-$((N+1)) out at the end of the > week, particularly since I'm busy next week. There were some other minor > changes: a tt(no) in the manual was missing a close parenthesis, some > dependencies for mod_complist.yo needed adding in the Makefile, a nodref > referred to `The complist module' instead of `The complist Module'. These > are appended below, but it assmues the name changes. Oh, yes. I forgot to test-make the docs, sorry. And thanks! Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de