From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17104 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2003 10:08:12 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 23 Sep 2003 10:08:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 2898 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2003 10:08:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 19127 Received: (qmail 2889 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2003 10:08:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Sep 2003 10:08:04 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [62.189.183.235] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 23 Sep 2003 10:8:4 -0000 Received: from EXCHANGE02.csr.com (unverified) by MAILSWEEPER01.cambridgesiliconradio.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.10) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:45:13 +0100 Received: from csr.com ([192.168.144.127]) by EXCHANGE02.csr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:47:18 +0100 To: Zsh Subject: Re: Problem with an exported array In-reply-to: "Wayne Davison"'s message of "Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:28:22 PDT." <20030922192822.GD23145@binome.blorf.net> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:44:58 +0100 Message-ID: <17957.1064310298@csr.com> From: Peter Stephenson X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2003 09:47:18.0503 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD6BD770:01C381B7] Wayne Davison wrote: > Here's my trick: use "ct" (it's already multi-use). A tied variable is > already excluded from being a special type of integer, so my change just > excludes the "ct" from being taken as a field width. See if you can see > any problems with this. This does break the existing function, % typeset -T FOO foo % foo=(bar rod) % typeset -R 15 FOO % print $FOO bar:rod and (unless you've taken special steps to fix it) you run the risk of the ct element being used for both when you request `typeset -R 15 FOO'. However, you only need eight bits (until we have wide characters, which is another future nightmare) and ct is at least 32, so it's tantalising... I would be tempted to add -S as a single flag now and wait until we have a better (virtual) interface to the parameters, then add a more general flag. As Oliver says, a different option letter would be more appropriate for the general case anyway. Eventually, I'd like struct param to become opaque to code outside params.c and use something like a single (vtable-style) pointer for type-specific bits. -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070 ********************************************************************** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. **********************************************************************