From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25541 invoked from network); 31 Aug 1999 12:30:39 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 31 Aug 1999 12:30:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29152 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 1999 12:30:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7575 Received: (qmail 29144 invoked from network); 31 Aug 1999 12:30:23 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: new parameter flag? In-Reply-To: <199908311145.NAA29781@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> from Sven Wischnowsky at "Aug 31, 1999 1:45:59 pm" To: wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Sven Wischnowsky) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:25:56 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL48 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram Sven Wischnowsky wrote: >+ opts[PROMPTPERCENT] = 1; >+ if (presc < 2) >+ opts[PROMPTSUBST] = opts[PROMPTBANG] = 0; No, that's nasty. I can see a need for % expansion, and I can see a need for prompt expansion, but prompt expansion with % sequences unconditionally enabled? If the user wants something so obscure, they can twiddle the options themselves. Make the above if (presc < 2) { opts[PROMPTPERCENT] = 1; opts[PROMPTSUBST] = opts[PROMPTBANG] = 0; } -zefram