From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26849 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2001 15:58:53 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 Aug 2001 15:58:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 20063 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2001 15:58:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15609 Received: (qmail 19988 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2001 15:58:30 -0000 From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1010809155825.ZM1792@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:58:25 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3B71740F.3D92A203@yahoo.co.uk> Comments: In reply to Oliver Kiddle "Re: PATCH: new and updated completions" (Aug 8, 6:17pm) References: <3B6EA97A.CD6DCB4F@u.genie.co.uk> <3B712464.A588EE5B@u.genie.co.uk> <1010808155228.ZM922@candle.brasslantern.com> <3B71740F.3D92A203@yahoo.co.uk> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: new and updated completions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 8, 6:17pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote: } Subject: Re: PATCH: new and updated completions } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } } > There is no reason, ever, to use $args[@]. } > } > Either ksharrays is set, in which case you need ${args[@]}, or it is not } > set, in which case $args is equivalent and microscopically faster. } } I had assumed that it was done this way for a reason such as handling } a strange option combination or that it was considered more readable } to have the [@] there. Maybe someone does have a reason? In the argument list of a command, it might be done just to alert the reader that multiple arguments are potentially being provided. In an expression like `args=( $args[@] ... )', the extra info is minimal. -- 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