From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17562 invoked from network); 29 May 2001 09:48:46 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 29 May 2001 09:48:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 12780 invoked by alias); 29 May 2001 09:48:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14525 Received: (qmail 12767 invoked from network); 29 May 2001 09:48:37 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:47:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200105290947.LAA09057@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: ZLS_COLORS/ZLS_COLOURS consistency in _setup In-Reply-To: <20010528115530.A17073@dman.com> Clint Adams wrote: > This attempts to follow the course of action outlined as option #1 > in the message included after the patch, though I agree that clobbering > those parameters is counterintuitive. Hm. I'm almost constantly amazed by all the things we people consider `intuitive' these days ;-) But anyway... there is no way around this if we want to be able to define context-specific colors. Which we want. > I wonder why ZLS_COLORS and ZLS_COLOURS aren't linked together > as special parameters by zsh/complist. Probably mostly simplicity in the C-code. These two aren't special in any way. The code just looks them up. > I also think the precedence > of those two should be documented. Hm, they are mentioned in the order in which they are looked up[1]. Bye Sven [1] So `COLORS' comes first. And that from me. I would have guessed it were the other way round. How counterintuitive. -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de