Re: zle_refresh patch 2

[<hzoli@xxxxxxxxxxxx> (Zoltan T. Hidvegi)]

gwing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
> :I think you can continue patching 3.0.3-test4 as long as you don't make
> :reference to zle globals in non-zle .c files.  Zoltan?

Yes, that's fine.  But I only keep and test the 3.1 source tree, 3.0 is in
the RCS file only.  What I do, is I patch 3.1, and if it works, I merge it
to the 3.0 branch.  So a 3.1 patch it is a bit more convinient for me, but
it is not a big difference.

> OK, I accidently killed my old source, but have reapplied patches
> 2865(me), 2956(Bart), 2957(Zoltan) to 3.0.3-test4
> I didn't apply 2866(2868) because I assumed 2956 superceded it.
> Does anyone know if there were any others?  Is it in your Changelog, Zoltan?

That's all I have in my ChangeLog.  I did not yet changed tsetcap() (this
is in zle_misc.c for 3.0 and in prompt.c in 3.1).  I assume that the
condition at the very beginning of tsetcap() should be
if (termok && tcstr[cap]), is that right?  Does it work in shortterm mode?
I do not know why was this shortterm/SINGLELINEZLE condition was there
before.

I also think it is fine for zle to act as if single_line_zle were set when
lines < 3.  This is a reasonable behaviour, and if normal zle requires a
lot of extra code to handle this it does not worth it.

I also remember having problems with the statusline when the buffer was
more than a screen high (e.g. start editing a large file with zed, and use
describe-key-briefly to find a meaning of a key, and the screen will be
messed up).

Zoltan