From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8144 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2015 17:14:00 -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: 20449 Received: (qmail 9802 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2015 17:14:00 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Co1XUcXAnHKtDA/d5MDhSIUv8Lc/790/t92IKkb+/lQ=; b=dTJuAoKFABKCeEN8NPEWoWPQMdTV6ZbbNSpqDk2C6mG7ZYsyeRj5OrsUmC5JSX06Kn /oNfq9CwfFmCQbmRGh7WQPpO6EjOKKmUEDMPCpVRIYMgD+Y1DT8XBCL5tqiAmTrdNrw/ 3YX5dugdh1rrMLLt7GyCWz94Ub4b06wZXVqT+5KNiTivITw2Ufj9TOE12mNTKad3CCYo LhXEDnbgfED21ekti5fPCU3wOJhpC9O6D/pl4aLK+6Pt/zcJUarPqd4/LLB7Pznr4U45 TleYwrYYXZQiuzhu1huLYxnSL68JBJ3fFzVWrrQrDLmgUCo7Q3lC34aTGcy0dqoO5QA6 wsLw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmtQGX5OxRih5w/uw0prdu/JNIiy9J5zTFvjvOkByT+9sNusjsTillSY/hrQ4GTw1Vj69/N MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.21.71 with SMTP id t7mr3696606lae.118.1440090837120; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:13:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150820165552.2b5ec817@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> References: <6ac3d5e6.2de49d01.55d4fc3c.9415a@prokonto.pl> <150819213302.ZM28036@torch.brasslantern.com> <794c2899.3f499b8c.55d5d132.18267@prokonto.pl> <20150820142913.77fa5bca@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <150820083431.ZM29050@torch.brasslantern.com> <20150820165552.2b5ec817@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:13:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: list last modified files From: Bart Schaefer To: Peter Stephenson Cc: Zsh Users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Peter Stephenson wrote: > > If you mean you'd rather blind me with code than state the rule... > that worked. I wasn't expecting any response at all other than perhaps some amusement, but as long as we're stating rules: > - If no "in", use positional parameters. > - Otherwsie, any words after "in" are the arguments to loop over, > taken in batches of the number of arguments before "in". The > words are no longer subject to anything more than normal argument > processing. Except that "do" is a keyword, so it ends normal argument processing. (This is the point of Stephane's follow-up.)