From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24679 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2004 17:48:16 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 19 Sep 2004 17:48:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 53634 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2004 17:48:10 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 Sep 2004 17:48:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 747 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2004 17:47:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 20386 Received: (qmail 731 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2004 17:47:56 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 Sep 2004 17:47:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 53343 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2004 17:47:56 -0000 Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (195.92.195.174) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 Sep 2004 17:47:55 -0000 Received: from modem-14.lemonpeel-angel.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.37.14] helo=pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1C95mz-0005Ij-V3 for zsh-workers@sunsite.dk; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:47:54 +0100 Received: by pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3557D863A; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DF18639 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:52:11 +0100 (BST) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: exit after 10 EOF's In-reply-to: References: <200409131118.i8DBIM5B005245@news01.csr.com> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:52:09 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: <20040919175211.3557D863A@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 on a.mx.sunsite.dk X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_44,RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Hits: 1.5 Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Duncan Sinclair wrote: > > > But in the absence of any special binding I don't see what's wrong with > > giving in and exiting after of the standard ignoreeof > > warnings have been printed. > > You may have hit on the solution. Rather than counting the number of EOF > key presses, count the number of warnings printed. Thus suppressing the > warning is the same as suppressing the exit behavior (which is not true of > the code as patched by 20363). I'd settle for that, I think. Yes, that sounds OK. If we could somehow make it (without too much tortuous code) that any zle -N widget, no matter what it contains, suppresses the warning and the EOF behaviour, I would be fairly happy. My main remaining unhappiness is with the structure of the code, which is why the message and the exiting are separate as patched; the same test occurs in two places (not counting the main loop in the main shell). However, maybe that can be fixed, too. pws