From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29461 invoked from network); 17 May 2000 08:39:06 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 May 2000 08:39:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 8732 invoked by alias); 17 May 2000 08:37:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11432 Received: (qmail 8708 invoked from network); 17 May 2000 08:37:47 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000517083735.ZM10863@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:37:35 +0000 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Curiosity: zstyle -a vs. zstyle -h MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I just did a little experiment. It appears that `zstyle -h pat style name' is exactly equivalent to `typeset -A name; zstyle -a pat style name'. This seems just a tad inconsistent; if `zstyle -h' is going to force the name to be an associative array, shouldn't `zstyle -a' force the name to be an ordinary array? (And shouldn't it be -A rather than -h? I thought we only used -h when -A was already taken, as with `stat' (and there it's -H).) An equally good (perhaps even better) alternative would be to drop the -h option entirely and require the array to be declared if one wants it to be an assoc. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com