From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14602 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2001 14:03:09 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 26 Jun 2001 14:03:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 3021 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2001 14:02:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15096 Received: (qmail 2981 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2001 14:02:19 -0000 From: Sven Wischnowsky Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:01:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200106261401.QAA24631@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: backward-kill-word behavior In-Reply-To: Peter Stephenson wrote: > Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > Personally, I'd prefer it if we started moving more into shell code or > > at least `prepare' that. So, how about adding a special array > > `kill_ring' or whatever to the zleparameter module? > > Fine, but we will have to expose the ZLE_KILL flag so we know whether to > overwrite or add to the existing buffer when user commands are mixed with > internal kills. This problem is why (some time ago) Zefram was trying to > decrease dependence on internal flags. The only other way is a different > way of communicating this and other pieces of state information. Ah, right. I always forget to take those flags into account. Hrm. No, that's probably too much to expose then. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de