From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18958 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2001 04:42:24 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 24 Sep 2001 04:42:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 11604 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2001 04:42:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15859 Received: (qmail 11589 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2001 04:42:17 -0000 From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1010924044210.ZM2258@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 04:42:10 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3BAB6726.3B23E63F@yahoo.co.uk> Comments: In reply to Oliver Kiddle "Re: PATCH: printf builtin" (Sep 21, 5:13pm) References: <1709.1001084140@csr.com> <3BAB6726.3B23E63F@yahoo.co.uk> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: print -z (Re: PATCH: printf builtin) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sep 21, 5:13pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote: } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } > } > There is a bit of an issue with respect to combining with -s and -z, as } > those at present imply -n, and -z also implies -r } } And, as far as I can tell -z doesn't imply -r. Hmm, the doc says: -z Push the arguments onto the editing buffer stack, separated by spaces; no escape sequences are recognized. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The above is correct for zsh 2.4, but not for zsh 3.0 or later. I'm not sure exactly when it became wrong. Does anyone remember whether the change in behavior was intentional (and the doc simply forgotten), or was this an accident and we should repair it to match the doc? -- 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