From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13939 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2009 09:38:21 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 Jan 2009 09:38:21 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 68423 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2009 09:38:12 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 23 Jan 2009 09:38:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 10831 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2009 09:38:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26410 Received: (qmail 10814 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2009 09:38:06 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 23 Jan 2009 09:38:06 -0000 Received: from cluster-g.mailcontrol.com (cluster-g.mailcontrol.com [208.87.233.190]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38D9880271F0 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:38:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from cameurexb01.EUROPE.ROOT.PRI ([193.128.72.68]) by rly12g.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id n0N9bnDx009809 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:37:56 GMT Received: from news01 ([10.103.143.38]) by cameurexb01.EUROPE.ROOT.PRI with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:37:54 +0000 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:37:49 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: add zle-line-finish special widget Message-ID: <20090123093749.1e6be9fe@news01> In-Reply-To: References: <18789.30656.261463.382208@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20090110095231.GA61601@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <20090111025418.GA7272@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <090111110748.ZM12349@torch.brasslantern.com> <090111193317.ZM12655@torch.brasslantern.com> <090117100812.ZM23494@torch.brasslantern.com> Organization: CSR X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2009 09:37:54.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[444BC330:01C97D3E] X-Scanned-By: MailControl A_08_51_00 (www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.71.0.122 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8895/Fri Jan 23 10:13:42 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:50:51 -0500 Greg Klanderman wrote: > >>>>> Bart Schaefer writes: > > > Refreshing my memory of the code a bit, I'm coming > > to the conclusion that the test should be: > > > if (done && !exit_pending && !errflag && > > (initthingy = rthingy_nocreate("zle-line-finish"))) { > > > At the very least it should check (done && !exit_pending), even if > > it ignores the state of errflag. > > Either of those should be OK by me.. would you like me to > test one or the other a bit and re-submit the patch? That what probably be sensible > >>>>> Peter Stephenson writes: > > > I don't know if this is correct or not---it really depends what > > zle-line-finish is designed to do. If it's a catch-all tidy up, it > > probably *should* run and then you probably should set errflag to 0 > > after saving the surrounding value. > > Right.. for my current use case it doesn't really matter whether it > runs in the error case or not. I'm not sure which semantics is best > in general. If one wanted to use it for some cleanup, or messing with > font colors or whatever, you might want it to run always. For now it sounds like you should leave it as it is. -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer CSR PLC, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070