From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-10694-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.auc.dk>
Received: (qmail 18682 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2000 12:26:35 -0000
Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Apr 2000 12:26:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 22143 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2000 12:26:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 10694
Received: (qmail 22114 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2000 12:26:27 -0000
X-Envelope-Sender-Is: Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru (at relayer david.siemens.de)
From: "Andrej Borsenkow" <Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru>
To: "Zsh hackers list" <zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk>
Subject: Should we backup this change? RE: Modifier substitutions.
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:26:15 +0400
Message-ID: <000201bfa47a$4c04c690$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <000e01bf9fab$0c3e59a0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700

There was no reply ... so I ask once more: should we backup this change?
I found, it can really be confusing (because pattern contents may be
pretty random).

I will rewrite _arguments/_configure (and may be a  bit doc) in this
case.

-andrej

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrej Borsenkow [mailto:Andrej.Borsenkow@mow.siemens.ru]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 1:33 PM
> To: Peter Stephenson; Zsh hackers list
> Subject: RE: Modifier substitutions.
>
>
>
> >
> > The `#' is being interpreted as an anchor at the head of the
> > string even
> > when buried inside $old.  I have a feeling that wasn't my intention.
> >
>
> Erm ... it was done by Bart (do not have arcticle number handy) as a
> result of my question. It was originally used when _configure called
> _long_options (was it called so?) to make "--disable-*" out of
> "--enable-*" (and vice versa). It gets pattern/replacement in the form
>
> '#--disable- --enable-'
> ...
>
> The intent was to not match string in the middle of option (it is
> unlikely in case of configure, but for the sake of generality
> ...) But,
> probably, now, with backreferences it can be rewrited as
>
> '(#m)--disable-(*) --enable-$MATCH'
>
> and explicitly anchor at the beginning.
>
> I do not insist on this change. This was the sole reason for it.
>
> -andrej
>
>