From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22398 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 09:21:57 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 26 Mar 2001 09:21:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 29860 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2001 09:21:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13769 Received: (qmail 29848 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 09:21:50 -0000 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:21:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200103260921.LAA13575@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Sat, 24 Mar 2001 16:37:41 +0000 Subject: Re: return code of _arguments Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Mar 23, 11:33pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote: > } Subject: return code of _arguments > } > } If my understanding is correct the test [[ $? = 300 ]] after _arguments > } is going to be equivalent to the test [[ -n $state ]]? > > I suggested getting rid of the 300 return code once before. Hm. We could of course add an option to _arguments to make it return 300 when needed. Non-_arguments-wrappers would call it without the option... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de