From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21555 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2000 17:52:58 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 Mar 2000 17:52:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 3749 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2000 17:52:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9969 Received: (qmail 3721 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2000 17:52:49 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: wordcode files In-Reply-To: <1000302164323.ZM15688@candle.brasslantern.com> from Bart Schaefer at "Mar 2, 2000 04:43:23 pm" To: Bart Schaefer Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:52:44 +0000 (GMT) CC: Sven Wischnowsky , zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram Bart Schaefer wrote: >How does that help with the situation where I have a directory named >"foo" and a file named "foo.zwc" both within the same parent directory? One logical way to handle this (if .../foo is in $fpath) is that the digest file is treated as a cache of the directory in the same way that individual wordcode files cache individual text files. So if autoloading `bar' from that $fpath entry, zsh would date-compare (a) .../foo/bar (text file), (b) .../foo/bar.zwc (individual wordcode), and (c) .../foo.zwc (entry for `bar' in digest file), and use the newest of the three. I'm not necessarily recommending this, it's just something to think about. -zefram