From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-34515-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 15075 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2015 09:26:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 34515
Received: (qmail 24406 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2015 09:26:01 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,
	SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-b7f126d000001e9a-77-54dc7113d547
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:25:36 +0000
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: completion problem with '291' ok with '274'.
Message-id: <20150212092536.74db3b50@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <150211213054.ZM19450@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <54DA87F5.5090303@eastlink.ca>
 <150210183520.ZM16470@torch.brasslantern.com> <54DACEF7.90605@eastlink.ca>
 <150210202035.ZM16595@torch.brasslantern.com> <54DAF251.4040702@eastlink.ca>
 <150211082827.ZM17558@torch.brasslantern.com> <54DB93F2.6090202@eastlink.ca>
 <CAH+w=7ZTM3njL=cO4AbdVU29KnjPLGqZ1euqnQMzRKFCvxCiSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <54DBE5BF.3020609@eastlink.ca>
 <CAH+w=7Yx5FX4ZOB=EKbNULy86+Q+czDM-YA90-j3H=X4v2eS0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <54DC0675.4040808@eastlink.ca>
 <CAH+w=7YisQBt_UJLjv4pmohvE0BL9Wr0TFye9Kio=b4NxH5Niw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54DC34EF.4010204@eastlink.ca> <150211213054.ZM19450@torch.brasslantern.com>
Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker:
 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xq7rChXdCDFpeslkcbH7I5MDoserg
	B6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujN8zZjAVNLNVPL7ez9TA+Iyli5GTQ0LAROLg6UdMELaYxIV7
	69m6GLk4hASWMkpcbPzFDOEsYZL4+/UzO4SzjVFi65aPQBkODhYBVYmNn7JButkEDCWmbprN
	CGKLCIhLnF17HmyDsIClxOunf1hBynkF7CW+L40ECXMKWEncbXoPNf83i8Tho3OYQRL8AvoS
	V/9+grrIXmLmlTNgM3kFBCV+TL4HNpNZQEti87YmVghbXmLzmrdgvUIC6hI37u5mn8AoNAtJ
	yywkLbOQtCxgZF7FKJpamlxQnJSea6hXnJhbXJqXrpecn7uJERK0X3YwLj5mdYhRgINRiYf3
	Re6dECHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoivEr2QCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MXtPf2svNj3q8
	reTs34crzRblHD2a1vpHeu+SdJeTs9NXKZXXV0s4veZ07RfdtJdnUW1nNntsHYsp9+Lwi3sL
	LlpeOfBtoa7pTtfQc1Y321s6fyTLfp/z0LVUXk+v5qLO9N1eqRoXCysOLX7oK2QeMWvqjduH
	P2ezqkurst+UE77KWbDpXmCCEktxRqKhFnNRcSIAd58noDgCAAA=

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:30:54 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> So basically we have to back out all of 34485 and start that over.

Yes, it's job control stuff that the test suite doesn't cover.

The only completely safe way of fixing the print_exit_value problem
would be to duplicate that higher up.  We can restrict the effect of the
patch in other ways but it covers too much obscure stuff to be sure
about it.

Removing the tests in front of the "*cmplx = 1" must be safe in the
sense that if it shows up problems for annonymous functions then they're
already present in the standard execution path and hence need fixing.
However, with the rest of the change absent I'm not aware of remaining
side effects of this alone.

pws