From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-users-return-17027-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 17969 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2012 02:51:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Users List <zsh-users.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-users@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-users-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 17027
Received: (qmail 5623 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2012 02:51:03 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <120427195048.ZM10479@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:50:48 -0700
In-reply-to: <20120427213837.1b861851@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
 "Re: ${(s::)VAR} vs "${(s::)VAR}"" (Apr 27,  9:38pm)
References:
 <CAFvQaj4rz82ByYJGhWBG-pZzZuJk4myGBsuSvj_PF64_HCfu1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120427213837.1b861851@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: zsh-users@zsh.org
Subject: Re: ${(s::)VAR} vs "${(s::)VAR}"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Apr 27,  9:38pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} This comes from the function wordcount() in utils.c, which is called in
} a couple of functions used for splitting words, none of which has any
} comments apart from a few speculations from me dating from 2003.  The
} function takes a mysterious argument mul which presumably has got
} something to do with doing something multiple times.

"mul" takes values -1, 0, 1.  The only time it's less than zero is when
called from spacesplit() with allownull == 0.  So it must have to do
with handling multiple consecutive appearances of the separator.

}  	for (; (c = findsep(&s, sep, 0)) >= 0; s += sl)
} -	    if ((c && *(s + sl)) || mul)
} +	    if ((c || mul) && *(s + sl))
}  		r++;

Does it matter that the changed line dereferences s+sl in cases where
the original line does not?