From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 13742 invoked from network); 9 May 2021 19:05:33 -0000 Received: from zero.zsh.org (2a02:898:31:0:48:4558:7a:7368) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 9 May 2021 19:05:33 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20200801; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Id:Sender:Content-Type:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: References:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=lUj/so2CBUZyH3FpThuOhOnNrbCNQ5REF1SGgQ5kAuc=; b=mrLSi6gPLW+vfAoFDUAgDlc02u 3zhLIWuRUz86Rr5Ozdn6xXI0kM7Pzdt5h46HSbQGXZ3yZCqLxltPpqnP7QcgRU/2SrAj1qpLDpZwQ mNfGZduRHilHEgrMMXltFlwgndiaWRdDwGyE1bQI6Idcf+8AehST5WMZrb967vzW+lpZG0igPNyis uEZlKquwQo6werWCdyYtbRwGCHC2cPHB2ugX+qGXI2yqNIADEV9NMOxhAo/13b4Qx4Q0gC9qeANZF izbqjeNcr+ZU09cU6zDcVnNTDz7jwSyuNcxPsI5CjWAYSvXgBzsFw0m2N6gShD1LFiTCnn++X0luJ i4eNdPyA==; Received: from authenticated user by zero.zsh.org with local id 1lfok8-0007l9-JE; Sun, 09 May 2021 19:05:32 +0000 Received: from authenticated user by zero.zsh.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1lfojt-0007Qe-Ia; Sun, 09 May 2021 19:05:18 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E304D27C0054; Sun, 9 May 2021 15:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 09 May 2021 15:04:58 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdegiedgudefhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesth dtredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepnfgrfihrvghntggvpgggvghljoiiqhhuvgiiuceolhgr rhhrhihvseiishhhrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeikeejveeludegfeeigf eulefggfdttdegheevvdehvdeigfehvdffuedvvdeuheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlrghrrhihvhdomhgvshhmthhprghuth hhphgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqudduhedukeejjedtgedqudduledvjeefkeehqdhlrghr rhihvheppeiishhhrdhorhhgsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5505AA00079; Sun, 9 May 2021 15:04:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-448-gae190416c7-fm-20210505.004-gae190416 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20210429142002.GI28063@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> References: <20210411141520.4ABA89D5@volny.cz> <20210413155236.GR6819@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <20210413200341.D91B3837@volny.cz> <20210414110355.GA31655@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <20210414134033.1AB3540B@volny.cz> <20210423141844.D01FC4C9@volny.cz> <20210426182512.E2A9C11C@volny.cz> <20210429142002.GI28063@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> Date: Sun, 09 May 2021 15:04:37 -0400 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Lawrence_Vel=C3=A1zquez?= To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Cc: zeurkous@volny.cz Subject: Re: revised patch: zshmisc(1) clarify non-successful exit statuses Content-Type: text/plain X-Seq: 48795 Archived-At: X-Loop: zsh-workers@zsh.org Errors-To: zsh-workers-owner@zsh.org Precedence: list Precedence: bulk Sender: zsh-workers-request@zsh.org X-no-archive: yes List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: On Thu, Apr 29, 2021, at 10:20 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > zeurkous@volny.cz wrote on Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 18:25:12 +0200: > > Making another revision. A question (well, two) below. > > > > "Bart Schaefer" wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:19 AM wrote: > > > > > >> +If execution fails: an error message is printed, and one of the > > >> +following values is returned. > > > > > > I would move this along with the sitem list to the very end, to follow > > > the paragraph about the command_not_found handler. > > > > > > Then change "If execution fails:" to "When there is no handler and > > > execution fails,". > > > > Presuming that most people won't bother to install such a handler: isn't > > it better to put the more-used information first? > > > > Sounds good to me: describe the common/default case first and layer on > exceptions second. Bart, WDYT? gentle nudge -- vq