From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by coral.primenet.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA11633 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 07:53:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA03069; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 17:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 17:50:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Zefram Message-Id: <17793.199607222127@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Bug in case stmt with '(' To: segal@morgan.com (Morris M. Siegel) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:27:56 +0100 (BST) Cc: hzoli@cs.elte.hu, zsh-users@math.gatech.edu, schaefer@nbn.com In-Reply-To: <9607221648.ZM3416@morgan.com> from "Morris M. Siegel" at Jul 22, 96 04:48:28 pm X-Loop: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk X-Stardate: [-31]7849.47 X-US-Congress: Moronic fuckers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"s2wqu2.0.xk.LU_yn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/328 X-Loop: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu >I confess to having forgotten about the empty pattern. Using null syntax >to implicitly denote the empty pattern in a script doesn't enhance readability >in any case, and I think zsh syntax would be safer and less confusing if the >empty pattern had to be denoted with the explicit syntax "()". Does POSIX require that a completely empty pattern be allowed? sh and ksh don't like it, and zsh only allows it where there's a |. I don't see any problem with producing a parse error, and requiring an explicit empty pattern. -zefram