Re: pushdcycle and pushdignoredups

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxx>]

"Bart Schaefer" wrote:
> On Nov 2,  1:56am, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote:
> } Isn't Functions/pushd enough for those who prefer the old behaviour?
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion on that; others can speak up (Peter?).  I
> note for your consideration that a function solution can't be put under
> the control of the "emulate" command for purposes of other functions that
> want to use "pushd" in a specific way.

My view was simply that it was a bit rich to expect those who've been
happily using the old behaviour all along suddenly to clutter up their
directories with new functions, particularly since it's *simpler* than
the behaviour now programmed.  I don't have any problem using the
function myself, except of course I have to export it to every
computer I can find and I never do that consistently, but then I never
install new versions of zsh consistently anyway.

> (Aside #2:  Does anybody wish there were an equivalent of "localoptions"
> that applied to functions and aliases, so that autoloads could blow away
> all the possible screwy redefinitions of builtins from their environment,
> yet have them magically restored when the function exits?)

Yes, particularly aliases (I can put with `command ls', but `command
'ls'' is going too far), but as was pointed out not long ago that's
already rather heavily hard-wired into the lexical analyser.

> } Also the number of options in zsh is already large enough to frighten an
> } average user.

As I sort of hint at somewhere in the FAQ, it's a little late to worry
about this now.  It does mean getting the defaults right is important,
though (and I still suggest turning alwayslastprompt on by default
would be a good idea).

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxx>       Tel: +49 33762 77366
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/       Fax: +49 33762 77413
Deutches Electronen-Synchrotron --- Institut fuer Hochenergiephysik Zeuthen
DESY-IfH, 15735 Zeuthen, Germany.