From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22207 invoked from network); 14 Dec 1998 15:58:51 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 14 Dec 1998 15:58:51 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA07366; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:57:15 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:57:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <981214075613.ZM21656@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:56:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: <9812141357.AA52087@ibmth.df.unipi.it> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Latest patched development version" (Dec 14, 2:57pm) References: <9812141357.AA52087@ibmth.df.unipi.it> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hackers list) Subject: zerr() and errflag (Re: Latest patched development version) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"hb7TO2.0.-o1.QLJTs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4774 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Dec 14, 2:57pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Latest patched development version } } I have not added Sven's zerr() patch, 4699, in case it has side } effects, but I haven't heard anything on the subject and I haven't } looked at it. I've noticed a couple of other places in the code where zerr() is called and then errflag is explicitly set. This makes me think that either (a) there is an undesired side effect, or (b) everybody else who has noticed errflag bugs has been worried about (a) and therefore fixed errflag in the caller. Personally, I think it was a bad idea for zerr() to have the side- effect of setting errflag in the first place. In any case, if zerr() needs Sven's fix, then so does zerrnam() a few lines later. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com