From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15826 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2006 06:37:49 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.1 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Apr 2006 06:37:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 58989 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2006 06:37:43 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 25 Apr 2006 06:37:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 28412 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2006 06:37:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10181 Received: (qmail 28403 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2006 06:37:34 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 25 Apr 2006 06:37:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 57976 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2006 06:37:34 -0000 Received: from thoth.sbs.de (192.35.17.2) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 25 Apr 2006 06:37:33 -0000 Received: from mail1.siemens.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoth.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k3P6bSaH011392; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:37:28 +0200 Received: from mhpahx0c.ww002.siemens.net (mhpahx0c.ww002.siemens.net [139.25.165.42]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k3P6bSEr026452; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:37:28 +0200 Received: from MCHP7R6A.ww002.siemens.net ([139.25.131.164]) by mhpahx0c.ww002.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:37:27 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Style question: Can this be written in a more elegant way? Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:37:26 +0200 Message-ID: <6F0CB04509C11D46A54232E852E390AC013D9EF9@MCHP7R6A.ww002.siemens.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Style question: Can this be written in a more elegant way? Thread-Index: AcZoMrfgNNfJqGLxSI2pj54ClnAz4A== From: "Com MN PG P E B Consultant 3" To: "Bart Schaefer" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2006 06:37:27.0889 (UTC) FILETIME=[B873D410:01C66832] > I think you mean: >=20 > file=3D( X*(Nom[1]) ) > (( $+file )) && PROG_SUCCESS $file || PROG_FAIL >=20 > However, that will run PROG_FAIL if PROG_SUCCESS fails, as well as if > there are no matching files. I don't think you can avoid if/else. >=20 > if (( $+file )); then PROG_SUCCESS $file; else PROG_FAIL; fi >=20 > Note that in the event that there are two or more files with the same > time stamp, there's no guarantee which one of them is chosen, and in > fact X*(om[1]) and X*(Om[1]) might both choose the same file. Thank you. This ambiguity would not be a problem in my case. Just out of curiosity: [OT] How exact are time stamps on files? If, basically, a time_t value is choosen for a time stamp, then in practice the only possibility for two files to come up with the same time stamp, is when the time stamp is explicitly supplied via "touch", isn't it? Ronald --=20 Ronald Fischer (phone +49-89-63676431) mailto:mn-pg-p-e-b-consultant-3.com@siemens.com