Re: zsh-3.1.1 on NetBSD patch & problems

[Vinnie Shelton <shelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

RC wrote:
> I don't think this is a matter of backward compatibility, but
> more of a matter of creating a decent environment for new users.

Well, I hate to disagree with some who's trying to find common ground with 
me, but I think it goes beyond the issue of creating a usable environment 
for new users.  Why should I have to add new cruft to my startup scripts 
everytime a new release comes out?  Why do we have to abandon things which 
are already working?  Why did I have to start using this function for pushd:

pushd () {
        setopt localoptions globsubst
        unsetopt ksharrays
        case $1 in
                +*) setopt pushdignoredups
                        builtin pushd ${${=$(dirs)}[$1+1]};;
                -*) setopt pushdignoredups
                        builtin pushd ${${=$(dirs)}[$1-1]};;
                *) builtin pushd $*;;
 
        esac
}

[Thank you Peter and Bart.]   Because people don't care about backward 
compatibility.  As Peter so aptly put it in article 2230:
    It's yet another case of running very hard to stay in the same place.

So, Zefram, in answer to your rhetorical question: "I care".

> I realize most people on this list probably have a large list
> of compctl's, and override all the default ones.  But this
> matter concerns new users rather than power users.  What do
> we save by removing the default compctl's?  Maybe 100 bytes, and
> a few micro-seconds of startup time.
> 
> Zsh should (by default) start in a usable state.  I hate tools that
> require extensive customization before they are usable.  Let's not
> take zsh down that path.

RC, on this we do agree.

I'll get down off my soapbox now.

vin