From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 531 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1999 14:28:41 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 27 Aug 1999 14:28:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 4239 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 1999 14:28:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7519 Received: (qmail 4232 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1999 14:28:33 -0000 Message-Id: <199908271427.JAA23890@wo1203.cmg.FCNBD.COM> Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 4.2mach v148) In-Reply-To: <199908270713.JAA16491@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 4.2mach (Enhance 2.0b5) From: Brian Boonstra Date: Fri, 27 Aug 99 09:27:22 -0500 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: 3.1.6 bug in NextStep/OpenStep 4.2 cc: luomat@kira.peak.org References: <199908270713.JAA16491@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Hi Sven (and all) I applied the patch (in 7513 and 7455) and it fixed the problem perfectly! Similarly to what Brian H. saw, `print -P "%s"' was not giving me any extraneous characters. For the benefit of those joining late, in order to get zsh 3.1.6 to compile on OpenStep, you also need the patch from 2372. BTW, Sven, this is especially welcome on OpenStep/NextStep, because the Terminal application supplied by them is so darn good that few people ever use anything else. And it does only vt100. Thanks, Brian Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > Brian Boonstra wrote: > > However, completion is not quite right. In particular, if I run > > either the usual binary, I get completion with extra "2" characters, like > > this: > I don't know about the other things, but I guess this is the same > problem mentioned by Brien Harvell (in 7443), only that he got `$<2>' > instead of the `2'. > > To repeat: I think this is caused by the complist code. It prints the > termcap string for `%s' (standout off) at those places. What irritated > me is that `print -P "%s"' didn't give him those `$<2>' strings. > > I then suggested the patch in 7455 (which is appended below for your > convenience), but got no reply from him after that, so I don't know if > it fixes the problem (I guess not).