From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22170 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2015 01:51:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 34225 Received: (qmail 22898 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2015 01:51:22 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) 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=3.3.2 X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=PYxIXZlY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=FT8er97JFeGWzr5TCOCO5w==:117 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=q2GGsy2AAAAA:8 a=oR5dmqMzAAAA:8 a=-9mUelKeXuEA:10 a=YNv0rlydsVwA:10 a=0hofmsJBKR7zolcTDzQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <150110175103.ZM21764@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:51:03 -0800 In-reply-to: <54B1A5EC.2080202@eastlink.ca> Comments: In reply to Ray Andrews "Re: Math expression evaluation error?" (Jan 10, 2:21pm) References: <54B03024.1030309@gmail.com> <20150109201552.1304eafe@ntlworld.com> <54B04ADA.9050102@gmail.com> <54B05407.7090303@eastlink.ca> <775A96D9-12A6-499B-8AAB-B2431F13701D@larryv.me> <54B069A9.2040504@eastlink.ca> <54B0D451.1000502@eastlink.ca> <150110085320.ZM28012@torch.brasslantern.com> <54B173ED.20301@eastlink.ca> <150110111445.ZM21328@torch.brasslantern.com> <54B1A5EC.2080202@eastlink.ca> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: Subject: Re: Math expression evaluation error? MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jan 10, 2:21pm, Ray Andrews wrote: } } BTW, just Googling, I see that this issue has come up time and again. } Our original poster on this thread is not the first person to be got by } this gotcha. Why not make the issue go away, once and for all? Because there is such a thing as standardized behavior across shells, and while it is fine to add or extend features, egregiously changing the behavior of the common subset is generally a bad idea. } I also presume that it accesses all the power of 'zcalc' (because why } *wouldn't* it?) It's actually the other way around. zcalc accesses the power of $(( )) but "looks" a bit more like a calculator. -- Barton E. Schaefer