From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19960 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2000 12:33:26 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 31 Mar 2000 12:33:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 9098 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2000 12:33:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10361 Received: (qmail 9083 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2000 12:32:59 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000331123253.ZM11752@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:32:53 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200003311136.NAA17413@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "PATCH: $pipestatus" (Mar 31, 1:36pm) References: <200003311136.NAA17413@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: $pipestatus MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 31, 1:36pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: PATCH: $pipestatus } } I was a bit lazy, er... no, I wanted to keep it fast, so this uses a } static array to keep the return values. A ridiculously large one, } though (currently it has 256 entries; that's nonsense, of course, } should we make it smaller? 64 entries? 32? 16?). I don't think there's any reason to make it smaller. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com