From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 938 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2015 17:01:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 34518 Received: (qmail 5668 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2015 17:01:38 -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-17-54dcdbdcdb52 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:01:25 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: completion problem with '291' ok with '274'. Message-id: <20150212170125.1762f3dc@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <150212084323.ZM20337@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> <54DBE5BF.3020609@eastlink.ca> <54DC0675.4040808@eastlink.ca> <54DC34EF.4010204@eastlink.ca> <150211213054.ZM19450@torch.brasslantern.com> <20150212092536.74db3b50@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <150212084323.ZM20337@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/xq7p3bt8JMViyWM/iYPNDJgdGj1UH PzAFMEZx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZayb8pipYA93xf/Dy1kaGDs4uxg5OCQETCRedYd0MXICmWIS F+6tZ+ti5OIQEljKKDHtTScLSEJIYAmTxM6Z8hCJbYwSV+5/AUuwCKhKnHk9kxHEZhMwlJi6 aTaYLSIgLnF27XmwGmEBS4nXT/+wgti8AvYSr2dMAavhFLCSaNzaxAwx9CGrxJyHM8GK+AX0 Ja7+/cQEcZK9xMwrZxghmgUlfky+BzaUWUBLYvO2JlYIW15i85q3zBCXqkvcuLubfQKj0Cwk LbOQtMxC0rKAkXkVo2hqaXJBcVJ6rqFecWJucWleul5yfu4mRkjQftnBuPiY1SFGAQ5GJR7e F7l3QoRYE8uKK3MPMUpwMCuJ8EYtAwrxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9iZOLglGpgXFOq17xp41T5 YxOOfuYM/rDl4F5j7hUXHVaKznzBPDFoQY2YQ93OXnHV3EQhW2mzJW2usg9fTl4Zzlx27niH 4Ke6ppelGv/lIi6quC992V+yg+nUf9aJBVX7llhpGlm2FBU+nftgS++yz4XHFFdd+tcUVfSE P3IhX6lIZsnxF5Ui9oczL8bkK7EUZyQaajEXFScCAOcO1AI4AgAA On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:43:23 -0800 Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Feb 12, 9:25am, Peter Stephenson wrote: > } Subject: Re: completion problem with '291' ok with '274'. > } > } On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:30:54 -0800 > } Bart Schaefer 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. > > So I should go ahead and commit that back-out? Yes, I think so. Thanks. > } 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. > > I thought we determined before that there's some sort of interaction > between the wordcode generation and the setting of *cmplx such that > one can't just change the way that value is computed in par_simple() > et al. without making a corresponding change upstream? > > I'm probably mis-remembering. You can't in general set *cmplx to 0 because that takes you through the simple path that doesn't handle everything. You should certainly be able to set it to 1 to go through the all-singing-all-dancing path. As it does that in any case with arguments, to fix an early problem, if it fails without arguments, then something *very* weird is going on. (Not saying it isn't, mind...) pws