Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: failed autoload
- X-seq: zsh-workers 18818
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx (Zsh hackers list)
- Subject: Re: PATCH: failed autoload
- Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:15:24 +0000
- In-reply-to: <11693.1057139730@xxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <11693.1057139730@xxxxxxx>
On Jul 2, 10:55am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: failed autoload
}
} So it seems to me likely that this got changed incorrectly to flag `no
} code present but no error' instead of `failed to load function, error'.
}
} Please contradict if you think my logic is wrong.
The difference since the patch mainly seems to be that the autoloaded
function remains undefined (and hence zsh will [attempt to] autoload it
again and again), rather than becoming defined as a no-op function.
Suppose you're calling the failing function in a loop. Now you'll get
the error repeatedly, as often as the loop manages to keep running,
rather than only once.
schaefer<509> repeat 7 breakthis
breakthis:3: parse error near `\n'
breakthis:3: parse error near `\n'
breakthis:3: parse error near `\n'
breakthis:3: parse error near `\n'
breakthis:3: parse error near `\n'
breakthis:3: parse error near `\n'
breakthis:3: parse error near `\n'
On the other hand, that's what happens even in older zsh with "function
definition file not found" so I'm not sure it's worth preserving the old
behavior.
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author