Re: 'whence' anomaly.

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 24,  8:10pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
} Subject: Re: 'whence' anomaly.
}
} On 03/24/2014 03:48 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
} >
} > "whence -m" searches, but does not populate, the command hash table.

Hmm, I seem to be wrong about that.  I just double-checked the code
(which I didn't bother to do before) and there is a call there to fill
the command hash table.

Furthermore, I can't reproduce Ray's original example now, though I'm 
pretty certain I did at least once.

} > Thus if the NO_HASH_CMDS option is set, "whence -m" does not work
} > at all. [*]

And this is only partly true. :-(  You have to both set NO_HASH_CMDS
_and_ erase the hash table with e.g. 'unhash -m \*' to break this,
otherwise the aforementioned code in whence fills the table regardless
of NO_HASH_CMDS.

So I apologize for the red herrings.

} Yikes, more ifs buts and maybes. Is there some way to get a reliable 
} result?

Based on what I just (re)discovered, it seems necessary to go out of
the way to get an UNreliable result.  What are the circumstances in
which you get nothing from 'whence -m', again?