From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17595 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2000 07:06:19 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 31 Mar 2000 07:06:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 9484 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2000 07:06:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10351 Received: (qmail 9464 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2000 07:06:08 -0000 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:06:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200003310706.JAA07712@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:57:42 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: was: Re: endianness of wordcode Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Mar 30, 12:56pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } Subject: Re: PATCH: was: Re: endianness of wordcode > } > } > } Bart Schaefer wrote: > } > } > On Mar 29, 11:14am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > } > } Subject: Re: PATCH: was: Re: endianness of wordcode > } > } > } > } So, this adds the -a option to zcompile which is needed to make > } > } functions that are currently only marked for autoloading to be written > } > > } > This is still a bit odd, because it means you have to check yourself > } > whether a function is defined or undefined before you know what result > } > "zcompile -a -c ..." is going to produce. I'd rather that you simply > } > CAN'T compile both defined and undefined functions in the same pass. > } > } Hm. Consider someone who has all his functions autoloaded (i.e. none > } defined in .zshrc or other init files) and doesn't use kshautoload. > } With the current state he can do `zcompile -ca all-funcs' to write them > } all into one file. If we disallow compiling both already-loaded and > } not-yet-loaded functions `in the same pass', it is impossible to do > } that if at least one of the functions happens to be loaded already. > > But that user will still get the wrong result if e.g. _cvs is one of the > functions that happens to be loaded already. Isn't it better to have to > expend slightly more effort to get consistent and correct results than to > easily be able produce an inconsistent and sometimes incorrect results? > > Even something as simple as searching $fpath and printing a warning when > a file with the same name as an already-loaded function is found, would > be preferable to silently doing the wrong thing. (That warning would be > printed only when -a is given, of course.) I'm starting to give in... So, make `-a' the opposite of not-`-a', i.e. barf when there are names of function not still makred for autoloading. Yes? Or maybe make `-a' the opposite of `-c'? I.e. `-c' says that currently defined (not marked for autoloading) functions are to be written and `-a' says functions marked for autoloading are to be written. We could then say `...to be written without signalling an error', so that `-ca' allows to mix both (I think I really want a way to do that, but it's ok for me to make it as far from the default as possible). And then we can add a description of the _cvs problem in the manual, so that people know why using this might be a problem. Would that be acceptable for everyone? Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de