From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23315 invoked from network); 14 Dec 1998 18:45:24 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 14 Dec 1998 18:45:24 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA13263; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:44:50 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:44:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <981214104207.ZM23883@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:42:07 -0800 In-Reply-To: <199812141011.LAA06380@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: wrapper functions in modules" (Dec 14, 11:11am) References: <199812141011.LAA06380@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Sven Wischnowsky , zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: wrapper functions in modules MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"V_EEH2.0.AF3.XoLTs"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4781 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Dec 14, 11:11am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: wrapper functions in modules } } > } [...] my first idea was to let modules register only one function } > } which would have to call back the execution code [...] } > } > This would indeed be an improvement. } } The patch below implements this suggestion with a slight modification } [...] Is the new first parameter of doshfunc() needed any longer? runshfunc() doesn't do anything with it except pass it to wrap->handler(), and at least in the example module the handler doesn't do anything with it but pass it back to runshfunc() again. Why are we slinging this around? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com