From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7783 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2004 21:02:14 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 Apr 2004 21:02:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 14289 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2004 21:01:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 19789 Received: (qmail 14276 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2004 21:01:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Apr 2004 21:01:57 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [130.225.247.86] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 17 Apr 2004 21:1:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 26821 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2004 21:01:57 -0000 Received: from d287e.d.pppool.de (HELO athlon) (80.184.40.126) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 17 Apr 2004 21:01:55 -0000 Received: from opk by athlon with esmtp (masqmail 0.2.20) id 1BEvr5-2sE-00 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:51:59 +0200 In-reply-to: <1040416173016.ZM1145@candle.brasslantern.com> From: Oliver Kiddle References: <1040410174430.ZM10891@candle.brasslantern.com> <1170.1081778412@athlon> <040412085942.ZM19035@candle.brasslantern.com> <3571.1081806187@athlon> <1040413053826.ZM20012@candle.brasslantern.com> <18035.1081870188@trentino.logica.co.uk> <1040413175111.ZM21011@candle.brasslantern.com> <13987.1082134179@trentino.logica.co.uk> <1040416173016.ZM1145@candle.brasslantern.com> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Compsys and KSH_AUTOLOAD Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:51:59 +0200 Message-ID: <11049.1082231519@athlon> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 on a.mx.sunsite.dk X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.0 required=6.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK, RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Hits: 4.0 Bart wrote: > > I get a new "make check" failure after applying this patch: > > Test/B02typeset.ztst: starting. > Test Test/B02typeset.ztst failed: bad status 0, expected 1 from: declare +m That's this test: declare +m 1:Differences of declare and typeset ?(eval):1: bad option: -m I noticed the missing `m' in the list of declare options when checking the completion function was consistent with the code. I assumed that was an oversight. I was probably unwise in getting side tracked into changing that sort of thing but why does declare have that difference to typeset? I can't see that it serves any useful purpose. But given that someone bothered testing it, maybe there is. Bash has no conflicting -m option. Or can I just remove the test? Oliver