From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-29230-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 16524 invoked by alias); 11 May 2011 16:48:45 -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: 29230
Received: (qmail 21641 invoked from network); 11 May 2011 16:48:43 -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: <110511094828.ZM24074@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:48:28 -0700
In-reply-to: <BANLkTinovAiSEF4rr9xEi=0J24oq+mTbEg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In reply to Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com>
 "Re: PATCH: expanding parameters like echo/print builtins" (May 11,  6:22pm)
References: <1305118971-25617-1-git-send-email-mikachu@gmail.com>
	<110511080327.ZM23776@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<BANLkTikEes0aKU-GYW3Q7Xd_aQteHWdvQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<110511090302.ZM23917@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<BANLkTinovAiSEF4rr9xEi=0J24oq+mTbEg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: PATCH: expanding parameters like echo/print builtins
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On May 11,  6:22pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: expanding parameters like echo/print builtins
}
} Do I need to clarify in the docs that you write g:: to give neither of
} the three flags? Just g by itself is an error, like for the other
} flags that take options.

I don't think that's a problem, but yes it should be doc'd.

BTW, the construct "... the exception of the next sentence.  In none
of these modes ..." is a little clunky; probably OK to just say "...
except that in none of these modes ..."

} for this flag there are a limited number of options, so : could be
} obligatory for the field separator, then you could say just (g). Does
} anyone care about this? :) (It would also mean we can't use : as a new
} flag though).

I don't like the idea of limiting the delimiter to ":".

RE Oliver's suggestion of a (\) flag -- I considered that too but it
is not clear whether the backslash might be removed in some contexts
before zsh gets around to parsing the flags.

I suppose we could use (/) (to mean "reverse the backslashes"?) but ...