From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12046 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 11:46:13 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 May 2000 11:46:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 24800 invoked by alias); 2 May 2000 11:45:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11063 Received: (qmail 24782 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 11:45:48 -0000 Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:45:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200005021145.NAA02660@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Mon, 1 May 2000 02:52:27 +0000 Subject: Re: 3.1.7-pre-2 Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Apr 30, 4:45pm, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } Subject: Re: 3.1.7-pre-1 for the workers > } > } I have a couple of issues that came up after the prerelease to resolve. > } > } The "read -q" bug that Sven patched in 10727. > > So ... 10727 makes this work: > > zsh -c "read -q '?Can you see this? '" < /dev/null > > But the following still sends the prompt to the redirected stderr, which > seems wrong to me: > > zsh -c "read -q '?Can you see this? '" < /dev/null >& /dev/null > > The goal is to read from the tty only after also prompting there. Patch > follows for consideration; I have not committed it, pending commentary. > The first hunk is the interesting one: It seems to me there's never any > longer a reason to send the prompt to stderr, but I may be missing some > case where ZLE is active and yet SHTTY == -1. (?) Actually, I was tempted to do the same when I sent the patch, then tried to act minimally invasive or something like that -- and couldn't think of the example you gave. > The other two hunks just avoid a redundant close(). Oops. If you commit the patch... there is similar code in bin_vared() in zle_main.c. Implemented by the same idiot. Ahem. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de