Which versiosn of ZSH of WS instead of NUL as result seperator

Which versiosn of ZSH of WS instead of NUL as result seperator

[Richard Hartmann]

Hi,


the vim source mentions that 'some' versions of zsh use as WS
instead of NUL for the seperation of the result list. Does anyone
know which versions that would be?


Richard

Re: Which versiosn of ZSH of WS instead of NUL as result seperator

[Bart Schaefer]

On Sep 23,  4:07pm, Richard Hartmann wrote:
} 
} the vim source mentions that 'some' versions of zsh use as WS
} instead of NUL for the seperation of the result list. Does anyone
} know which versions that would be?

A little context would help here.

Result list of what?

Re: Which versiosn of ZSH of WS instead of NUL as result seperator

[Bart Schaefer]

On Sep 23,  8:06pm, Richard Hartmann wrote:
} 
} Sorry, should have posted this [1] right away..
} 
} [1] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&q=+%22Some+versions+of+zsh+use+spaces+instead+of+NULs+to+separate%22+show:7brZGF5oKIU:mnXLpU4y0PU:6p3TOUN40_w&sa=N&cd=1&ct=rc&cs_p=http://www.minix3.org/software/vim-6.3.tar.bz2&cs_f=vim-6.3/src/os_unix.c#a0
}-- End of excerpt from Richard Hartmann

So if I read this correctly, the question is:  Which versions of zsh fail
to use NUL between words in the output of "print -N"?

As far as I know, the answer is:  Versions of zsh so old that they don't
support "print -N" in the first place.

I don't know of any circumstances in which that comment in the vim source
is meaningful.  Either "print -N" will fail with "bad option" or it'll
output words separated by NULs.  My only conjecture is that the comment
predates the code earlier in the file, that uses the STYLE_PRINT flag.