From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19160 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2000 09:31:06 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Oct 2000 09:31:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 12431 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2000 09:30:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12874 Received: (qmail 12423 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2000 09:30:30 -0000 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:30:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200010040930.LAA09399@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:42:38 +0000 Subject: Re: Use of zerr() vs. zwarn() Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Sep 29, 4:58pm, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } Subject: Use of zerr() vs. zwarn() > } > } init.c:1122: zwarnnam(name, "option valid only in functions called from completion", > } Should these use zerrnam(), as do completion-only conditions within > } [[ ... ]] ? > > Judging from the indentation on the line following the call to zwarnnam(), > I suspect that this originally *was* a call to zerrnam() and was changed > to zwarnnam() at some point in the past, but I can't find a zsh-workers > article in the archive to confirm. (Maybe it was in a uuencoded patch; > it predates my first local import of 3.1.x, which I believe was 3.1.4.) > > This makes me inclined to leave this whole sub-category alone, at least > until there's been some feedback. Yes, please. I changed that in 10131. The discussion leading up to it is in 10120, 10122 and before. We had problems with builtins stopping loops (or not) because of errflag. No opinion or comments on the other things yet... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de