From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-users-return-2219-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.auc.dk>
Received: (qmail 23159 invoked from network); 11 Mar 1999 17:10:45 -0000
Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Mar 1999 17:10:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 2089 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 1999 17:09:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 2219
Received: (qmail 2082 invoked from network); 11 Mar 1999 17:09:22 -0000
Subject: Re: why is `bare' in bare_glob_qual?
In-Reply-To: <19990311120111.A28076@astaroth.nit.gwu.edu> from Sweth Chandramouli at "Mar 11, 99 12:01:11 pm"
To: zsh-users@sunsite.auc.dk
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:09:19 +0000 (GMT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL39 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E10L8xT-0004Cl-00@crucigera.fysh.org>
From: Andrew Main <zefram@fysh.org>

Sweth Chandramouli wrote:
>	but, as of yet at least, there is no non-bare syntax?

Correct.

>	                                                       that is,
>if bare_glob_qual is turned off, can glob qualifiers still somehow be
>used?

No.

-zefram