From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by werple.net.au (8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id UAA13860 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 20:06:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA09239; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 03:52:49 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 03:52:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <12538.9601100851@pyro.swan.ac.uk> To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: -M option for limit In-Reply-To: "A.Main@dcs.warwick.ac.uk"'s message of "Mon, 08 Jan 96 17:39:40 GMT." <21002.199601081739@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 08:51:47 +0000 From: P.Stephenson@swansea.ac.uk X-Mts: smtp Resent-Message-ID: <"Y-roP1.0.HG2.Wvtym"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/729 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu A.Main@dcs.warwick.ac.uk wrote: > I think the limit syntax would be much more consistent if it were > changed from "limit resource value" to "limit resource=value". This > would allow arbitrary mixtures of setting and examining resource > limits, as is already possible with things like typeset and alias. The > limit builtin is rather well-established, though, so if it's going to > be changed it really can't be delayed. Any opinions? I think this would be an unnecessary incompatibility. -- Peter Stephenson Tel: +49 33762 77366 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Fax: +49 33762 77330 Deutches Electronen-Synchrotron --- Institut fuer Hochenergiephysik Zeuthen DESY-IfH, 15735 Zeuthen, Germany.