From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-users-return-17527-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 12522 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2013 23:28:43 -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: 17527
Received: (qmail 10166 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2013 23:28:42 -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=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at linux.vnet.ibm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:28:13 +0800
From: Han Pingtian <hanpt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: zsh-users@zsh.org
Subject: Re: PATCH and more remarks on parameter expansion docs
Message-ID: <20130102232813.GG2054@localhost.localdomain>
References: <CA+zrezQX3hAh1dcPvi6-W9pJ+goWrm2vzQ6gSP=EAjyuw2micQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <121230112044.ZM879@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20121231233002.GC2054@localhost.localdomain>
 <130101211501.ZM3814@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20130102083224.GF2054@localhost.localdomain>
 <130102084644.ZM4876@torch.brasslantern.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <130102084644.ZM4876@torch.brasslantern.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 13010223-7182-0000-0000-000004285EC4

On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 08:46:44AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Jan 2,  4:32pm, Han Pingtian wrote:
> }
> } Thanks your nice patch. But I'm still wondering why not change the
> } statements after "${=spec}" in man page. Or I'm misunderstanding the
> } original statements which has been stating this "splitting before
> } assignment" behavior is only related to "(A)" flag? 
> 
> You mean this?
> 
>      Note that splitting is applied to WORD in the assignment forms of
>      SPEC _before_ the assignment to NAME is performed.  This affects
>      the result of array assignments with the A flag.
Yes, I mean this.

I think it doesn't say this splitting _before_ assignments is only true
when (A) is used. Looks like if (A) wasn't used, splitting will _after_
the assignments:

    % print -l ${=xx::=foo   bar} . $xx . ${(A)=xx::=foo   bar} . $xx
    foo
    bar
    .
    foo   bar
    .
    foo
    bar
    .
    foo
    bar

So I think maybe it should say this splitting before assignments is only
true when (A) is used. The original statements give me the feeling that
this splitting before assignments is peformed in any conditions. Or I am
misunderstanding the statements?

Thanks.
> 
> I must not be understanding what else you think it should say.  Is it
> just that it isn't "... the A flag, among other things"?