From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18099 invoked from network); 9 Oct 1998 15:49:17 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 Oct 1998 15:49:17 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA15598; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:41:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <981009084444.ZM24902@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:44:44 -0700 In-Reply-To: <9810091125.AA12690@ibmth.df.unipi.it> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "PATCH: 3.1.4: (alternative) neg-argument fix" (Oct 9, 1:25pm) References: <9810091125.AA12690@ibmth.df.unipi.it> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.1.4: (alternative) neg-argument fix MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"icl4y1.0.cp3.awY7s"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4422 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Oct 9, 1:25pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: PATCH: 3.1.4: (alternative) neg-argument fix } } There was a patch from Bart back in zsh-workers/4268 to fix a problem } with neg-argument (\e- in emacs mode), namely \e-\e1 gave you 11 } instead of 1 and so on. Now I come to look at this, I can't get it to } work, i.e. neg-argument won't function at all. Hmm. I believe you're right. I changed the 3.1.4 code to match the equivalent code in 3.0.5, but I missed that digitargument() zeros zmod.tmult when MOD_TMULT isn't flagged. (3.0.5 never zeroes zmult, and always multiplies by it.) } I couldn't see a way of doing this without } adding a new flag, though that doesn't mean there isn't one. Has the whole multiplier thing become more complicated than necessary in 3.1.4? MOD_TMULT obviously does more than the `gotmult' global in 3.0.5 did. In any case, Peter's patch is preferable to mine. } Is there any enthusiasm for upgrading universal-argument to do what } emacs does, that is to take any following digits as part of the } argument? YES! That would be so much easier than having to clamp down Alt or hit ESC repeatedly to enter the digits. Just remember that it also needs to take a following `-' as part of the argument. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com