From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23981 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2011 12:15:50 -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: 16281 Received: (qmail 5623 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2011 12:15:47 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at bewatermyfriend.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) From: Frank Terbeck To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: INTERACTIVE_COMMENTS - why? User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:02:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87y5yjf251.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Df-Sender: 430444 Hey list! I've been wondering why the option `interactive_comments' is there at all. I thought, that maybe comments would clash with some corner cases of `extended_glob', like when you have a file called "a b" and try a glob "a\ #b". But that is not the case. Since I couldn't find a technical reason for it, it might be there for emulating the behaviour of another shell. My guess would be csh or tcsh, which behave like that, too AFAIK. Can someone confirm that suspicion or did I miss a technical issue that can be avoided by having `interactive_comments' unset? Regards, Frank -- In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -- RFC 1925