From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-19152-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.dk>
Received: (qmail 13647 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2003 17:30:25 -0000
Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Sep 2003 17:30:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 10343 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2003 17:30:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 19152
Received: (qmail 10333 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2003 17:30:19 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 28 Sep 2003 17:30:19 -0000
X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk)
Received: from [4.3.58.249] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 28 Sep 2003 17:30:19 -0000
Received: (from schaefer@localhost)
	by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h8SHUHs17050
	for zsh-workers@sunsite.dk; Sun, 28 Sep 2003 10:30:17 -0700
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-Id: <1030928173017.ZM17049@candle.brasslantern.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:30:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20030928161959.GA29645@acolyte.scowler.net>
Comments: In reply to Clint Adams <clint@zsh.org>
        "PATCH: $SECS" (Sep 28, 12:19pm)
References: <20020430185259.GA2825@dman.com>  <21763.1020245894@csr.com> 
	<20020526215840.GA15122@dman.com>  <23146.1064741224@athlon> 
	<20030928161959.GA29645@acolyte.scowler.net>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97)
To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk
Subject: Re: PATCH: $SECS
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sep 28, 12:19pm, Clint Adams wrote:
}
} strftime "%d-%m-%y" $SECS
} 
} Is it worth having the second argument be optional?  Is SECS too generic
} a name?

It's not too generic, but I think it's too easily confused with $SECONDS.