Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: insert-last-word (was Re: zsh request)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 2456
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jdl@xxxxxxxx ( JD Laub), zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: insert-last-word (was Re: zsh request)
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:09:58 -0800
- In-reply-to: jdl@xxxxxxxx ( JD Laub) "insert-last-word (was Re: zsh request)" (Nov 22, 9:09am)
- References: <9611221609.AA24586@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: schaefer@xxxxxxx
On Nov 22, 9:09am, JD Laub wrote:
} Subject: insert-last-word (was Re: zsh request)
}
} Bart Schaefer writes:
} > not able to distinguish the 1 prefix from no prefix at all).
}
} Not that I'm objecting to the implementation, but I'm curious: gotmult
} gets set if the user supplied a prefix, with zmult storing the actual
} prefix. Am I missing something?
No, I am. It's been so long since I changed any zle functions, I'd
forgotten that it existed; there are only two places outside zle_vi.c
where it's tested, so I didn't spot it when looking at other functions
that use zmult ...
I still think the way I did it is the best way, though. With gotmult,
it could be changed so that -1 was the last word, -2 the second-last,
etc., as with array subscripting; but since the name of the function
is insert-LAST-word, I think it makes sense to count from the right
without having to type that extra `ESC -'.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author