From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17280 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2015 10:13:42 -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: 36364 Received: (qmail 19108 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2015 10:13:41 -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: cbfec7f5-f794b6d000001495-e3-55e577f6010d Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:03:31 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: PATCH v2 (complete): Implement zle -P Message-id: <20150901110331.437e4db8@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <23177.1441101027@thecus.kiddle.eu> References: <1441087664-9081-1-git-send-email-mikachu@gmail.com> <23177.1441101027@thecus.kiddle.eu> 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+NgFjrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xa7rfyp+GGiy9LG1xsPkhkwOjx6qD H5gCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Ms5dNC94yF7xZ9Er1gbGPrYuRk4OCQETidcXFrJD2GISF+6t B4pzcQgJLGWUeLO1gxnCmcEkcaLpHCuEs5VR4tmK9awgLSwCqhLTd30Ea2cTMJSYumk2I4gt IiAucXbteZYuRg4OYQEjiXsbSkHCvAL2EhPXf2YBsTkFDCR+z10NNkZIIE3i8OUvYHF+AX2J q38/MUFcZC8x88oZRoheQYkfk++B1TALaEls3tbECmHLS2xe85YZYo66xI27u9knMArNQtIy C0nLLCQtCxiZVzGKppYmFxQnpeca6RUn5haX5qXrJefnbmKEhOzXHYxLj1kdYhTgYFTi4e34 +CRUiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkghvZeTTUCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOM0hwsSuK8M3e9DxESSE8s Sc1OTS1ILYLJMnFwSjUwnirZ58p+r2xvr5BhxLH1S25djEzeyTVddo6Ly2Qd+4fS3SU8X4Vr 6k72BntxVhr76ZlX/4r1ym5dPZd/q/faQ3x3D3JLrtmuzsd8deZPE60u7dfL2taJMz/umTah I5eFr++43KKlcaqt2j3P9++/oX/x6smGxhn2k8wWqfQE+1dcjbssyn9KiaU4I9FQi7moOBEA nOVXkFUCAAA= On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:50:27 +0200 Oliver Kiddle wrote: > Mikael Magnusson wrote: > > Indeed, I'm not sure if a user can figure out which widgets are useful > > to override in this way. Would it be more useful to just do what Wayne > > did originally and let zle -N take some flags that specify which specific > > flags the new widget should have after all? The advantage of this method > > is that if we add more flags, users can wrap those widgets without us > > remembering to add a new zle -N flag as well. > > I think that approach is better than the prototypes. I'd be inclined to think this is both clearer and more powerful, too. I think originally there was resistance to this on the basis that the flags were a hack we shouldn't really have at all, let alone expose. However, it's now obvious they're needed, and documenting them would probably be a good thing anyway. So exposing them for use becomes a natural extension of that. pws