From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10646 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2015 08:20:25 -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: 36164 Received: (qmail 11833 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2015 08:20:22 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-f79c56d0000012ee-01-55cda4c13180 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:19:45 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: PRINT_EXIT_VALUE: Suppress for if/while conditions Message-id: <20150814091945.2b048787@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <20150813232020.GF1998@tarsus.local2> References: <20150731231225.GB2054@tarsus.local2> <20150813093238.046a1b08@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20150813232020.GF1998@tarsus.local2> 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=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xa7oHl5wNNfjdw2pxsPkhkwOjx6qD H5gCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mv43VxcsYau4uHAycwNjE2sXIweHhICJxO2rYl2MnECmmMSF e+vZuhi5OIQEljJKPHp8mBnCmcEkcffMORYIZxujxINLPcwgLSwCqhLn915gA7HZBAwlpm6a zQhiiwiIS5xde54FxBYWsJfoP7sdrIYXyP50oIsdxOYUMJJoe32cFWJoP6PEudYzYEP5BfQl rv79xARxk73EzCtnGCGaBSV+TL4HNpRZQF1i0rxFzBC2tsSTdxdYQWwhoPiNu7vZJzAKzULS MgtJyywkLQsYmVcxiqaWJhcUJ6XnGuoVJ+YWl+al6yXn525ihATtlx2Mi49ZHWIU4GBU4uG1 aDsbKsSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmE90YeUIg3JbGyKrUoP76oNCe1+BCjNAeLkjjv3F3vQ4QE0hNL UrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2Ms/YyaypGljik/FB5mfH4T4T6J93NttcZNN6f83xVWSGbePm6ryND yf8D0n7rF+U8EoxJFvdtCX3NV37whk/3u3VT13Fw3mteM2GNjkTq4Z9hR2U7nk8UnFMkxrbj h3rKmdOm9VW7qws9wzbvrIlWKbrZ8OvfZvN9X8sE99c8/3Y/O/3gxe5qJZbijERDLeai4kQA DHUd/1YCAAA= On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 23:20:20 +0000 Daniel Shahaf wrote: > I have no problem with ruling out the jobs/bg/fg callsites, as you > propose. However, checking (synch =3D=3D 1) would also mean the value of > PRINTEXITVALUE is entirely ignored when printjob() is called > asynchronously. I can see that that is fine for jobs that don't have > STAT_NOPRINT set.=C2=B9 Is it also correct to ignore PRINTEXITVALUE in t= he > case (synch =3D=3D 0 && (jn->stat & STAT_NOPRINT))? My point is really that you don't want to *modify* the code unless synch =3D=3D 1. So sync =3D=3D anything else should continue to do just what it = does at the moment, but if synch =3D=3D 1 you can apply your extra check. That seems likely to do the nearest to what everybody wants. pws