From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3476 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2000 09:00:14 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 13 Apr 2000 09:00:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 25864 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2000 09:00:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10729 Received: (qmail 25852 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2000 09:00:03 -0000 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:59:37 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Subject: Re: Should we backup this change? RE: Modifier substitutions. In-reply-to: "Your message of Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:00:05 +0400." <000001bfa50d$83d622b0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Message-id: <0FSY00CA66BCLS@la-la.cambridgesiliconradio.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > BTW where are these (#s) and (#e) useful? The patterns in parameter > expansions are anchored by definition; the patterns in conditional > expressions/case statements are anchored to full word as well. Could you > provide example where you cannot do without (#s)/(#b)? In alternatives. Try reading the manual entry. > In any case, this is additional argument in favour of backing out this > change (assuming, that these (#s)/(#b) really work). If they worked here it would certainly simplify substitutions; although there are ways of doing most things with the existing anchors, they are even less readable and memorable (and that's saying something). -- Peter Stephenson Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070