From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18436 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2009 00:51:10 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 Jan 2009 00:51:10 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 26768 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2009 00:51:04 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 23 Jan 2009 00:51:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 13311 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2009 00:51:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26408 Received: (qmail 13292 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2009 00:51:00 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 23 Jan 2009 00:51:00 -0000 Received: from QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.56]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F60580271F0 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:50:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 6bTB1b0070QuhwU56oqt95; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:50:53 +0000 Received: from smtp.klanderman.net ([98.217.254.247]) by OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 6oqt1b0015M2Np63NoqtQb; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:50:53 +0000 Received: from lwm.klanderman.net (unknown [192.168.100.50]) by smtp.klanderman.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E64B30148 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:50:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by lwm.klanderman.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id ACB579FC5EF; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Klanderman To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: add zle-line-finish special widget Reply-To: gak@klanderman.net Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:50:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <090117100812.ZM23494@torch.brasslantern.com> (Bart Schaefer's message of "Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:08:12 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.17 (linux) References: <18789.30656.261463.382208@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20090110095231.GA61601@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <20090111025418.GA7272@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <090111110748.ZM12349@torch.brasslantern.com> <090111193317.ZM12655@torch.brasslantern.com> <090117100812.ZM23494@torch.brasslantern.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8893/Thu Jan 22 21:18:43 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean >>>>> Bart Schaefer writes: > Refreshing my memory of the code a bit, I'm coming > to the conclusion that the test should be: > if (done && !exit_pending && !errflag && > (initthingy = rthingy_nocreate("zle-line-finish"))) { > At the very least it should check (done && !exit_pending), even if > it ignores the state of errflag. Either of those should be OK by me.. would you like me to test one or the other a bit and re-submit the patch? >>>>> Peter Stephenson writes: > I don't know if this is correct or not---it really depends what > zle-line-finish is designed to do. If it's a catch-all tidy up, it > probably *should* run and then you probably should set errflag to 0 > after saving the surrounding value. Right.. for my current use case it doesn't really matter whether it runs in the error case or not. I'm not sure which semantics is best in general. If one wanted to use it for some cleanup, or messing with font colors or whatever, you might want it to run always. thanks, Greg