From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-35197-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 19921 invoked by alias); 19 May 2015 01:35:13 -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: 35197
Received: (qmail 2698 invoked from network); 19 May 2015 01:35:10 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
	daniel.shahaf.name; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
	:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc
	:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=az5GUktto1yY8DqkNrnBgTfWJ2k=; b=D+IlC/
	ASjidS/RS7kSz9zawoaE8fdm6hd3PNXeQ1WikXdXVUoL5Te7OmTLoXIqmoKlQPPB
	FP9k42ac8QdsLvKjtT000h6AVrewc4qOKjLqrxe5NXpsdQe4j3BY1nne/FpPQXw0
	qX7rGLXcuS2JSHKMWHvOEujfm2eKFE6AjPVWk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
	messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
	:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc
	:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=az5GUktto1yY8DqkNrnBgTfWJ2k=; b=bQHOC
	wW3F6Hrc/ZyqT3vAINBS4djE3RScScuczvIqIiMiIKBZ12Cx5J6b78kZWac26gZs
	un5Yiy/8vLac7NUntP5u33MHJlcIxq8Uj4GonwX8p+98qSypPoTy1Wm5aTCiUyAW
	Wee/cBpQjJqHJNYeKY1Xuxt3CFZvKQEOlDF6cE=
X-Sasl-enc: pT43oJHwvVNr7/tj3kdT3jh6YuhuHJJRVsIasNY3G6Jt 1431999305
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 01:34:57 +0000
From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: Zsh Hackers' List <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: vim completion problem after workers/35168
Message-ID: <20150519013457.GA2024@tarsus.local2>
References: <CAJ1KOAh9_WHM9WS_NKXFy9Dhqrsupi+xT36euHLq9iaWaZ_oig@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150518115301.0c80918d@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <CAJ1KOAhWcNN-F7jXgo0vCc+ioR2d09_f1Np9EWf0TS+rZ-fkkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150518124039.0160a3bb@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <150518173034.ZM2314@torch.brasslantern.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <150518173034.ZM2314@torch.brasslantern.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Bart Schaefer wrote on Mon, May 18, 2015 at 17:30:34 -0700:
> On May 18, 12:40pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> } Subject: Re: vim completion problem after workers/35168
> }
> } On Mon, 18 May 2015 14:22:20 +0300
> } Ismail Donmez <ismail@donmez.ws> wrote:
> } > _vim:7: parse error near `)'
> } 
> } Yet another annoyance: in the old hack, you got away with having a
> } pattern beginning with "(" (and containing balanced parentheses)
> } followed by an unbalanced ")".  Now you don't.
> 
> Hrm.  Zsh patterns include "(this|that)", and "case" syntax includes
> "pattern)" without an open paren, so ...?
> 
> The "old hack" is one of those "well, it really should have been done
> differently in the first place, but it wasn't, so now what?" issues
> that bug me because *somebody* is going to get bitten in the way _vim
> just was.

Is there any case in which the neither pre-35168 code nor post-35168
code gives a parse error, but the semantics are different?

I'm not as worried about previously-valid code becoming syntax error
(I've already found an instance of that "in the wild") as of valid code
becoming valid-but-semantically-different code.

Daniel