From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7713 invoked by alias); 7 May 2012 17:02:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 17063 Received: (qmail 20116 invoked from network); 7 May 2012 17:02:55 -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 Message-id: <120507100224.ZM10658@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 10:02:24 -0700 In-reply-to: Comments: In reply to Moritz Bunkus "Re: zargs: unexpected, non-xargs behaviour" (May 7, 6:10pm) References: <20120507084141.GA8366@lohen.blott-online.com> <120507071434.ZM10459@torch.brasslantern.com> <120507082522.ZM10556@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: zargs: unexpected, non-xargs behaviour MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 7, 6:10pm, Moritz Bunkus wrote: } } A strong hint at the very beginning of the documentation that the } number of arguments are counted differently in GNU xargs and zargs } would probably help a lot. Yes, the info / manpage doc for a lot of the contributed functions is sparse. We don't have any volunteers dedicated to this sort of thing so they get updated piecemeal when (a) someone notices and (b) that intersects with [usually another] someone having time to write doc.