From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11699 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2004 19:00:02 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 3 Sep 2004 19:00:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 69874 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2004 18:59:56 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 3 Sep 2004 18:59:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 15295 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2004 18:59:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 20315 Received: (qmail 15280 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2004 18:59:53 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 3 Sep 2004 18:59:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 69597 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2004 18:59:53 -0000 Received: from moonbase.zanshin.com (64.84.47.139) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 3 Sep 2004 18:59:51 -0000 Received: from toltec.zanshin.com (toltec.zanshin.com [64.84.47.166]) by moonbase.zanshin.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i83IxnYx007784 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:59:49 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:59:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Bart Schaefer Reply-To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: zsh exits after delete-char-or-list and two ^Cs In-Reply-To: <200409030937.i839bJxR018972@news01.csr.com> Message-ID: References: <200409020919.i829J0eC012233@news01.csr.com> <200409030937.i839bJxR018972@news01.csr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 on a.mx.sunsite.dk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_44 autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Hits: -0.0 On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Peter Stephenson wrote: > (Oliver says the In-reply-to and References format should work better > like this. Tell me if it doesn't.) (Looks fine. What are you using as a mail reader?) > Bart Schaefer wrote: > > zle && echo "widgets callable" # I'm least certain of this > > zle -I && echo "Display invalidated and widgets callable" > > zle -R && echo "Display refreshed and zle active" > > > > Is that right? > > Yes, noting that testing for `display invalidated' and `display > refreshed' doesn't form part of the return status (I think that's what > you mean but it's not clear from the output). Hmm. OK, that's not so good, because it breaks "zle -I || ..." in the case where you want to know whether the display was NOT invalidated. (Maybe there's never a reason to care about that, but ...) > I agree, it's just a question of how much of a stickler you are for > having the return status reflecting `command did what I expected' rather > than `command did something and tested for something else'. I'm quite willing to have "zle -I" go back to testing for "invalidating the display was a sensible thing to attempt" provided that "zle" (no args) tests for "widgets callable", and that all of this is documented more clearly. > I want to emphasis calling zle -I multiple times has no bad effect. > Maybe the English for that is "calling zle -I multiple times has no bad > effects". Yeah.