Re: Hooks

["Nikolai Weibull" <now@bitwi.se>]

On 11/7/06, Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com> wrote:
> Stephane Chazelas <Stephane_Chazelas@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> > functions[preexec]+='
> >   get_saved_dirstack'
> > functions[chpwd]+='
> >   save_dirstack'
>
> This is even further away from the original subject, but I've often felt
> that functions like preexec and chpwd are getting a bit overloaded and
> are unnecessarily hard to maintain automatically.  It would be easy to
> add an array which could contain names of functions to be executed,
> similar to Emacs hooks.  Of course you can implement such an array
> within the existing functions, but the advantage of having a fixed
> mechanism is that it's easy to add to and be sure it's working without
> getting in anyone else's way.  You still have namespace problems, of
> course, but if you have functions called get_saved_dirstack and
> save_dirstack that clash your real problem is almost certainly more
> basic than naming.
>
> However, I'm not sure if it's really needed.

Yes, please do add.  It's a real, em...lady of the night, to try to
chain all these functions properly (i.e., checking if preexec is
defined and then try to get its definition or however I did it when I
did it last time (I did this for a prompt that was depended on the
value of $WIDTH, so I read it on each preexec, but I also had another
function running at preexec, so I had to get that other functions body
and eval it from the prompt preexec instead.).

Thanks!

  nikolai