From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24580 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 14:05:47 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 26 Mar 2001 14:05:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 28195 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2001 14:05:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13772 Received: (qmail 28184 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2001 14:05:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20010326140536.40657.qmail@web9301.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:05:36 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Oliver=20Kiddle?= Subject: Re: return code of _arguments To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk In-Reply-To: <200103260921.LAA13575@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 11:33pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote: > > } If my understanding is correct the test [[ $? = 300 ]] after > _arguments > > } is going to be equivalent to the test [[ -n $state ]]? I gather that the reason I was wrong there is because $state may contain something before the call to _arguments (an may not be a local) and without ->state actions, it would be unchanged. > 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... I think doing something like this would definitely be a good idea. I think it is better if the functions for user commands (like _bzip2) are kept simpler at the expense of things like _arguments and _x_arguments. I suppose the latter will also need to take the new option and when called without it will need to use compstate[nmatches]. Oliver ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie