From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27283 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2001 18:58:46 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Jun 2001 18:58:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 5749 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2001 18:58:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15010 Received: (qmail 5734 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2001 18:58:05 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1010620185500.ZM9172@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:55:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: PATCH: 4.1: multi-parameter for loop" (Jun 20, 7:39pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Peter Stephenson , zsh-workers@sunsite.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: 4.1: multi-parameter for loop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 20, 7:39pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: PATCH: 4.1: multi-parameter for loop } } I much more concerned that there's some valid POSIXy case I've missed } that this screws up. Well, there's this: for in in in in; do echo $in; done I haven't applied your patch yet, so I don't know whether it fouls up the above, but clearly a parameter named "in" can only appear in the first position, and everything else has to be taken as a keyword first and only a parameter name otherwise. } I'm perfectly happy to attach it to some } relevant option, but I don't think there is a good one; What if you attached it to the "foreach" keyword, but not "for"? So then one would have to write foreach x y z (p d q) ... Just a thought. -- 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