Daniel Shahaf

Try the features/redrawhook branch.

Presumably with `zprof` — it's documented in the zsh manual.

Thanks. We should release 0.7.0, merge the branch, and then look into those 20%.

Some more analysis in a comment on a recent issue that's a duplicate of this one: https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting/issues/734#issuecomment-630979611

On the other hand, `$+$` and `$+#` do _not_ test `$$` and `$#` for existence, unlike, say, `$+argv`.

We should also point out to zsh upstream that `$##` does not behave as [this comment in subst.c](https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh/blob/8460d75869fcddaaa2a6beed9b4d78c60a9fed19/Src/subst.c#L2333-L2340) claims.

Note also #239 which is the same thing but with $options[unset] at its default setting. @phy1729 Is there an analogy we can use? E.g., `touch foo; : foo` and the...

It's easy to convert between false positive and false negative, e.g., `rm foo; make foo` or `foo=42; echo "$foo"`. I think the expected behaviour should be to highlight according to...

.. meant in a "patches welcome" sense.

The design needs to consider history modifiers `$foo:h` and subscripts `$foo[42]`.