Re: That infinite loop in Geoff's second zle_refresh patch

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 17, 12:03pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> Subject: Re: That infinite loop in Geoff's second zle_refresh patch
> schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > The patch below changes starting count from 0 to 1, which stops the
> > infinite loop, but feels wrong to me.
> 
> This has a bad effect:  inserting or deleting on a continued line
> before the end of the line redisplays the rest of line wrongly.

My patch depended on Goeff's second zle_refresh.c patch, which was not
included in pre3.  Could it be that you don't have Geoff's patch?
Should I send a complete diff of my zle_refresh.c against pre3?  (I
have other patches from Zefram in there, too.)

I still don't understand (a) why the code worked before, as it was
calling tcdelcost(0) long ago; nor (b) what made it break this time.
Any insight, Geoff?

On Jul 18, 12:21am, Geoff Wing wrote:
> Subject: Re: That infinite loop in Geoff's second zle_refresh patch
> 
> Looks fine to me.  I give it my blessing :-)  

And there's no problem with the fact that `for (...; *p1; p1++, i++)'
now has i indexing one position farther into p1?  (That looked OK to
me -- in fact, it made more sense than what was there before, as i
is now the length of the substring that gets printed out of p1 -- but
I don't deeply understand the surrounding code, so ....)

> :This has a bad effect:  inserting or deleting on a continued line
> :before the end of the line redisplays the rest of line wrongly.
> 
> Um, what stuffs up?  Is this on an xterm?  An example?

Yes, an example would be helpful.