Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: Crash when completion script call itself.
- X-seq: zsh-workers 41790
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "zsh-workers@xxxxxxx" <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Crash when completion script call itself.
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:22:16 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brasslantern-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=eTLenDFFS+qB7/YEAUh0m/41po5PYxbjCvhsuRN7tnA=; b=LX8rS6GREvUNPSqRadQYbH4ZGRpLwRg0iUxzZioDATCp8zr0oMB6jCq0AdpzWK7v9i QKicBlBE6kzV9SnziJRpYg/jscwKmTu4wh8F6gh65yH03hNoK8HA1FPouef0rQxma8uN zmYYLSrGUSr1ZPOks5plh/rDXIuYueWaSPitRynI76wl/L3+aKn4JijT3mXXZX4LIeew OrflzvX0LAzMgnjikvyU9HTKGxRLBb2Cn5dNcrdLvuvDj2rqFUVti+H4eaA+jo8Y7w/R S/kflvI6dGFv4qjxcLlXWpHQ1hZgsGRQPIhXQ58oGuB2mYJMKbxc9iCGYR/LUQs2QNQh WOWg==
- In-reply-to: <20170929151614.56fd9cff@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
- List-help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <CGME20170929072715epcas1p4171c28e9b82f94d79796ecca7e564ec3@epcas1p4.samsung.com> <CAPqtr1KToL4KMX0Rh7dgtpqR9MvgJL06N-ChiXY6Qf-uCwOqsw@mail.gmail.com> <20170929121008.3da15b34@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <4913136.yYypKkW7sH@kdudka-nb> <20170929151614.56fd9cff@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Peter Stephenson
<p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is the proposed change. I think the compromise of reducing the
> value but making it more easily configurable is probably a good one. It
> currently makes the new variable appear in all emulations, but I can
> change that.
Philosophically speaking, the value of 1000 for max depth was also
based on user experience, and one might expect that most environments
now have more stack space available than they did many years ago when
1000 was chosen. So reducing this value might make it more likely
that people will encounter the "depth exceeded" error. At the least
the error message should be updated to mention increasing FUNCNEST ?
With respect to the #ifdefs, I think entirely removing FUNCNEST is a
bad idea -- it should remain so that its value can be examined. We
could go so far as to mark it readonly if preventing it from being
reset is the intention. I guess that affects whether the shell keeps
track of the current depth, too, but that doesn't seem like much
overhead.
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author