From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9430 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2000 14:35:22 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 3 Aug 2000 14:35:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 13987 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2000 14:35:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12505 Received: (qmail 13979 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2000 14:35:05 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000803143137.ZM32458@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:31:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: <000a01bffd48$84686510$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> Comments: In reply to "Andrej Borsenkow" "RE: PATCH: Re: FW: About word splitting in read (Zsh)" (Aug 3, 4:44pm) References: <000a01bffd48$84686510$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "Andrej Borsenkow" , Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: FW: About word splitting in read (Zsh) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 3, 4:44pm, Andrej Borsenkow wrote: } Subject: RE: PATCH: Re: FW: About word splitting in read (Zsh) } } > > But still. The docs are wrong (backslashes inside the string). Should } > > we change the code or the doc? } > } > This changes the docs. } } And this tries to clarify it a bit more. The docs are IMHO still misleading - } at least, I get impression that consecuitive whitespaces between words are } eliminated. That is not the case: } } bor@itsrm2% read foo } bar baz } bor@itsrm2% print %$foo% } %bar baz% This happens only when "leftover fields [are] assigned to the last name." It's consistent with bash. Ash preserves both the inter-field AND the trailing whitespace in that circumstance, which would lead me to guess that the original Bourne `read' doesn't strip trailing whitespace. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net