From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16309 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2004 21:36:02 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Apr 2004 21:36:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 12290 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2004 21:35:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 19760 Received: (qmail 12239 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2004 21:35:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Apr 2004 21:35:55 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [130.225.247.86] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 12 Apr 2004 21:35:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 26837 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2004 21:35:54 -0000 Received: from d7f88.d.pppool.de (HELO athlon) (80.184.127.136) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 12 Apr 2004 21:35:42 -0000 Received: from opk by athlon with esmtp (masqmail 0.2.20) id 1BD9Ct-0vc-00 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:43:07 +0200 In-reply-to: <040412085942.ZM19035@candle.brasslantern.com> From: Oliver Kiddle References: <1040410174430.ZM10891@candle.brasslantern.com> <1170.1081778412@athlon> <040412085942.ZM19035@candle.brasslantern.com> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Compsys and KSH_AUTOLOAD Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:43:07 +0200 Message-ID: <3571.1081806187@athlon> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 on a.mx.sunsite.dk X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.0 required=6.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK, RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Hits: 4.0 Bart wrote: > Matthias has since written back to me again and says he's having all sorts > of problems with zcompile'd functions even after starting from scratch and I've had problems with it in the past so it probably needs more investigation. > I don't specifically mean "does the above workaround deserve a FAQ entry" > but rather "does using compsys with kshautoload deserve a FAQ entry", > whatever the best A to the Q turns out to be. It probably does deserve an FAQ entry. The minimum possible A to the Q will be to use -z when using autoload for compinit. With that we either need an FAQ or to suggest the -z everywhere we show the autoload -U compinit. > The autoload method used isn't stored anywhere in the function structure. > Only the fact that the function is not yet defined is stored, and then zsh > applies whatever autoload setting is in effect globally at the time that > the function is loaded. Presumably it also stores whether the function was autoloaded with the -U option. Looks like there is a PM_UNALIASED flag. Maybe we can just add PM_ZSHSTORED and PM_KSHSTORED flags. > I suppose we could modify the storage and the code that does autoloading > [as opposed to modifying only bin_autoload()]; I forget why I didn't do > so at the time -- probably because it was a significantly larger change. It just needs a bit of investigation then to see if there was a more fundamental reason. I was wondering if there was some clash with typeset options (autoload being a variant of it). Hopefully not. Oliver