From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23061 invoked from network); 11 Mar 1999 17:03:26 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Mar 1999 17:03:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 712 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 1999 17:01:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 2217 Received: (qmail 694 invoked from network); 11 Mar 1999 17:01:51 -0000 Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:01:11 -0500 From: Sweth Chandramouli To: ZSH Users Subject: Re: why is `bare' in bare_glob_qual? Message-ID: <19990311120111.A28076@astaroth.nit.gwu.edu> Mail-Followup-To: ZSH Users References: <19990310162906.A25254@astaroth.nit.gwu.edu> <14055.25969.542043.262168@awayteam.zanshin.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95i In-Reply-To: <14055.25969.542043.262168@awayteam.zanshin.com> On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 10:40:49PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote: > Sweth Chandramouli writes: > > to what does the "bare" in bare_glob_qual refer? > > See zsh_users/1569: > > My intention is that eventually we will have some other, unambiguous, > glob qualifier syntax, which will be available regardless of > BARE_GLOB_QUAL. (We need the capability to disable the current > qualifier syntax in order to fully emulate ksh glob syntax.) > > -zefram > > So "bare" means that they're just sitting there on the end of the pattern, > with no special disambiguating syntax to introduce them. but, as of yet at least, there is no non-bare syntax? that is, if bare_glob_qual is turned off, can glob qualifiers still somehow be used? -- sweth. -- Sweth Chandramouli IS Coordinator, The George Washington University / (202) 994 - 8521 (V) / (202) 994 - 0458 (F) *