From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25563 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2001 17:34:48 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Jun 2001 17:34:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 3708 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2001 17:34:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14999 Received: (qmail 3689 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2001 17:34:08 -0000 X-Envelope-Sender-Is: Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru (at relayer goliath.siemens.de) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:34:35 +0400 (MSD) From: Andrej Borsenkow X-X-Sender: To: Bart Schaefer cc: Clint Adams , , <101083@bugs.debian.org>, Subject: Re: %l prompt expansion change In-Reply-To: <1010620170108.ZM8579@candle.brasslantern.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } > } Well, mostly aesthetic considerations. It is `0' om /dev/tty0 and pts/3 or > } term/4 somewhere else. Also, ps usually shows tty line as base name sans > } /dev/. And not every Unix is Linux yet to treat /dev/tty* specially. > > The treatment of /dev/tty* has nothing to do with Linux, and everything > to do with old BSD around 4.2, where real TTYs were named /dev/ttyt* and > PTYs were named /dev/ttyp*, and the intent was to have %l expand to e.g. > "t9" or "p9". The idea of logging in on a real system console with a > /dev/tty<-> name probably never occurred to PF -- unix machines were > almost exclusively time-sharing when this code was first written. > > I can almost guarantee that PF never expected %l to expand to include an > entire directory name like "pts/" or "term/". Prompts are intended to be > extremely concise, to maximize editing space. That's why RPROMPT came to > exist: a prompt that could be verbose but would get out of the way when > your command line got long. > It already expands to term/* if tty is /dev/term/*. So, the point of my patch was to eliminate inconsistency. It is hard to me (sorry) to remember that {0} is tty0 when most of the time I have {pts/3} or like. > } I asked if somebody was against this change. > > Well, we asked if anybody was against the HIST_NO_STORE change, too, and > now Vincent is complaining about it. Probably we should ask these kinds > of questions on zsh-users (without including the proposed patch). > But Clint is on zsh-workers list. No offence intended. -andrej