From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2841 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 16:58:44 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 16:58:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 18129 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2000 16:58:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10202 Received: (qmail 18109 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 16:58:23 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000322165818.ZM1484@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:58:18 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200003221332.OAA16839@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go" (Mar 22, 2:32pm) References: <200003221332.OAA16839@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Shifty shift (Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 22, 2:32pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: ignored-patterns giving correction a go } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } } > } > shift "i > $# ? $# : i" # Stupid shift error on i > $# } > } } > } Yes! It's annoying, isn't it? I was tempted more than one to change it. } > } > Bash gives the same error. Sigh. } } So does ksh (`shift: bad number'). Damn. Foolish consistency? } Does that make `argv=( $argv[2,-1] )' more efficient in some cases? More efficient than "i > $# ? $# : i"? Probably, if the array is short. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com