From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9755 invoked from network); 11 Nov 1998 21:29:14 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Nov 1998 21:29:14 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA11225; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:28:16 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:28:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <981111132646.ZM3704@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:26:46 -0800 In-Reply-To: <9811111607.AA16367@ibmth.df.unipi.it> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "PATCH: 3.1.5: prompt truncation behaviour" (Nov 11, 5:06pm) References: <9811111607.AA16367@ibmth.df.unipi.it> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.1.5: prompt truncation behaviour MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"SkBz93.0.Kl2.m5WIs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4605 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Nov 11, 5:06pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: PATCH: 3.1.5: prompt truncation behaviour } } There are two caveats. First, it's a bit incompatible with the old } behaviour. For example, with '%10>...>%~%# ', only the %~ would have } been truncated, while now the '% ' or '# ' will be included and you } have to say explicitly '%10>...>%~%>>%# '. This change could be } enough for us to receive death threats. The documentation improvements are good in any event. We could take a poll on zsh-users to see how many people are actually using truncation. } Second, the truncation string } itself is still not expanded, since I don't think that's what it's } for. That's OK. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com