From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21158 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 04:33:53 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 04:33:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 6280 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2001 04:33:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14100 Received: (qmail 6264 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 04:33:47 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1010426043340.ZM12204@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:33:40 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200104251325.PAA03945@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: Another keep-prefix problem" (Apr 25, 3:25pm) References: <200104251325.PAA03945@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Another keep-prefix problem MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 25, 3:25pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } } I won't commit this before I get positive replies and answers to the } question if we then should add another possible value for the } keep-prefix style for this new behaviour or if that's not needed (I } can't really think of a reason for keeping the old behaviour -- put some } people probably like it?). I think the behavior of expanding only some of the parameter references in a word was a bit odd to begin with, and that we should just do it the way this patch changed it and leave it at that. I.e., no new style. -- 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