From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28264 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2015 17:15:58 -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: 20256 Received: (qmail 17605 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2015 17:15:55 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=thequod.de; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :references:subject:subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:from :date:date:message-id:received:received; s=postfix2; t= 1434042952; bh=etYszSSQtmNUVIk5AyGJ1V9UBOxoupODOPaGX6FGSGo=; b=j 5DSojftIqLghE9dTH5eJEGaMfQjFQsCDLrRwLNHOPYVbx+ceP+Fz7iwUjrUwpo6o Hw6jwaZkp2WPsZdMGJ3Lx5OQZi46p/DoL0fZJvCCopIo72ZM33oBMNp2Ohu6xH90 RagX8lWKqQ7zLCAJYfIjGfWRbSSH0JZJgKAMda/hPk= Message-ID: <5579C247.1060800@thequod.de> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:15:51 +0200 From: Daniel Hahler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: bashcompinit: sourcing /etc/bash_completion References: <5578996E.3080700@thequod.de> <150610191427.ZM30841@torch.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <150610191427.ZM30841@torch.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11.06.2015 04:14, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Jun 10, 10:09pm, Daniel Hahler wrote: > } It fails with the following line: > } > } local cword words=() > Well, that's unfortunate. In zsh "local" is not a special token, so the > arguments are parsed as normal shell words, so you cannot have an array > initialization as part of a "local" declaration. Could this be easily improved, without breaking backward-compatibility? (I've found myself trying to use this pattern before.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iD8DBQFVecJHfAK/hT/mPgARAirWAKD8g3v6E4g8rNP8fof5u1rryrsnQwCdGzeg qE5JNN2mMTuqSNigMcvYfsU= =yzsZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----