From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-28426-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 10325 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2010 06:34:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 28426
Received: (qmail 10668 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2010 06:34:07 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <101120223401.ZM6950@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:34:01 -0800
In-reply-to: <20101120211528.0caf8697@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
 "Re: PATCH: bash-style substrings & subarrays" (Nov 20,  9:15pm)
References: <27165.1290012857@csr.com>
	<101119100147.ZM4622@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20101120211528.0caf8697@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org (Zsh hackers list)
Subject: Re: PATCH: bash-style substrings & subarrays
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Nov 20,  9:15pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: bash-style substrings & subarrays
}
} On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:01:45 -0800
} Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
} > On Nov 17,  4:54pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} > }
} > } This implements the ${NAME:OFFSET} and ${NAME:OFFSET:LENGTH} syntax.
} > 
} > I'm wondering whether :OFFSET:LENGTH shouldn't always use KSH_ARRAYS
} > semantics, or be a valid syntax only when KSH_ARRAYS is set?
} 
} I can see that if you interpret the word "OFFSET" literally it's
} different from a subscript and you might interpret it as starting
} from 0 in any case. I still think on balance consistency with normal
} subscripting is preferable.

I agree that consistency wth normal subscripting is preferable, but
subscripting behaves like a pair of offsets only when KSH_ARRAYS is
set (hence the second alternative I suggested).

However, I'm mostly indifferent.

} I don't think half-measures compatibility with other shells is
} particularly useful, in the end is probably more confusing when you
} find some things work the way you expect and some things don't.

I'm confused about how that relates to the foregoing, sorry ...?

Thanks for the additional patch.