From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11846 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2017 16:24:23 -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: 22492 Received: (qmail 9745 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2017 16:24:23 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mta02.eastlink.ca by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(24.224.136.13):SA:0(-0.7/5.0):. Processed in 1.036489 secs); 25 Feb 2017 16:24:23 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: rayandrews@eastlink.ca X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.eastlink.ca designates 24.224.136.13 as permitted sender) X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=ZvqvEJzG c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=XjFz1dxMm4jRJ7U1/4sCTg==:117 a=XjFz1dxMm4jRJ7U1/4sCTg==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=hCN1IUGdNIeVvYaItlwA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 X-EL-IP-NOAUTH: 24.207.24.32 Subject: Re: bash conversion trouble. To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <004ec4f2-3b3a-8907-86a6-4326399783aa@eastlink.ca> <170224204153.ZM19840@torch.brasslantern.com> <6f722b8f-a712-985f-65e8-3b03a5b352c3@eastlink.ca> <170225075521.ZM22115@torch.brasslantern.com> From: Ray Andrews Message-id: <32f48d32-2b11-045e-5925-8f112783f1e2@eastlink.ca> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:24:15 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <170225075521.ZM22115@torch.brasslantern.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 25/02/17 07:55 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Feb 25, 3:26pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: > } > } setopt ksharrays > } > } simulates this, but obviously if you want consistency with other > } functions, don't even think sbout it. > > Also typically do > > setopt localoptions ksharrays > > so the zero-based-ness doesn't leak out to the rest of the shell. If > you're in a standalone script you won't be sourcing, that's not needed. > Just curious: why would that have been changed? It's the sort of thing that would obviously make trouble, and of course if there's a good reason for it, that's too bad, but what's the good reason? These zero or one based counting issues are everywhere and I've never been able to see why one is to be preferred over the other, tho zero might seem more computery and one would be more 'natural' I suppose.