From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-44380-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@zsh.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_ALL,DKIM_INVALID,
	DKIM_SIGNED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: from primenet.com.au (ns1.primenet.com.au [203.24.36.2])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 449f2bfc
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>;
	Wed, 29 May 2019 21:51:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 2518 invoked by alias); 29 May 2019 21:50:50 -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>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:zsh-workers-unsubscribe@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 44380
Received: (qmail 9132 invoked by uid 1010); 29 May 2019 21:50:50 -0000
X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mx.spodhuis.org by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from <zsh-workers+phil.pennock@spodhuis.org>, uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 
 (clamdscan: 0.101.2/25461. spamassassin: 3.4.2.  
 Clear:RC:0(94.142.241.89):SA:0(-4.3/5.0):. 
 Processed in 1.895842 secs); 29 May 2019 21:50:50 -0000
X-Envelope-From: zsh-workers+phil.pennock@spodhuis.org
X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: |
X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: |
Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at spodhuis.org designates 94.142.241.89 as permitted sender)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=spodhuis.org; s=d201905; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:
	Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:
	Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:
	Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:
	List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
	bh=TFJJs5TOw5fGZDhldSZ27n9eSdtJT5QAN3jybMlJxy8=; b=D8NZEcUUYbC5vHg44umz+rzq77
	a5v/Q1IvgsJBLqG4Jz8NxxePEnUzQaBkeh9mttuldRUhAcRxeRHEtIVb5YenOE1FCdcRiHGTvZdN9
	rLtuMEsH4uW9v+zLN7NLu/ijcDDZHmFOCTmfMfQFCFalGsnmtjxHj7hHOAIvEKjLxcCUr2qKhsD9/
	l8auESIxJh3/CBuCLTpO4IOmFJXQUucPfY28ZVD7NlaQAl41LYsShjERm0IciDDv+Jbl252v4QXcz
	8KkZqpyJzXIF6kfsLuUrZQXSg+scVjz2A/6NyrDv7BXym6RsI9Zpc6LxfmK+Jqmj4q3Gg/KEImFnz
	r4mFxIWQ==;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=spodhuis.org; s=d201905e2; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:
	Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:
	Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:
	Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:
	List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
	bh=TFJJs5TOw5fGZDhldSZ27n9eSdtJT5QAN3jybMlJxy8=; b=aKUi9geBvqnLbhLLiEauTGgbYG
	8tNnNcYgnHzzjc+9VQfScHA0GXnzS1a9nQFRQPFgkH4aApZkt6xyFavRkYDA==;
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 17:50:05 -0400
From: Phil Pennock <zsh-workers+phil.pennock@spodhuis.org>
To: Jun-ichi Takimoto <takimoto_j@me.com>
Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] _ssh_hosts: abort early if in a path
Message-ID: <20190529215005.GA61620@phil-pennock>
References: <20190527233331.GA84827@phil-pennock>
 <5F7BFA16-8F23-438C-A57B-1EB4E82757A4@me.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5F7BFA16-8F23-438C-A57B-1EB4E82757A4@me.com>
OpenPGP: url=https://www.security.spodhuis.org/PGP/keys/0x4D1E900E14C1CC04.asc

On 2019-05-29 at 22:57 +0900, Jun-ichi Takimoto wrote:
> > 2019/05/28 8:33、Phil Pennock <zsh-workers+phil.pennock@spodhuis.org>のメール:
> > 
> > +case "$PREFIX" in
> > +  ( /* | ./* )
> > +    return
> > +    ;;
> > +esac
> 
> Isn't it better to "return 1"?

Doesn't seem to make any difference to the ssh family completions or to
git, but the docs seem to suggest that you're right, and `return 1` is
better.

> _ssh_hosts (before your patch) does not return 1 even if it can't 
> find any matches. Maybe better to fix this also?

If someone else wants to start an audit of the shipped completion
functions and their return statuses, then that's great.  Perhaps there's
some future optimizations which could be made if more of the completion
system cared about return codes.

But for me: the patch I offered (possibly modified to return 1) makes a
significant difference to performance and usability of zsh when copying
files between hosts.  That's the patch I'm offering for consideration:
small; simple to analyse; with clear results.

-Phil