From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id HAA10656 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 07:15:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA11220; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199606242108.RAA03506@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.6 3/24/96 To: schaefer@nbn.com cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Symmetry of hash/unhash In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 23 Jun 1996 10:56:58 PDT." <960623105703.ZM13192@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:07:59 -0400 From: Richard Coleman Resent-Message-ID: <"nS_Zj2.0.El2.nFmpn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1439 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > Why doesn't "hash" accept "-a" for aliases, like "unhash"? Shouldn't > "hash -f" mean functions, like "unhash"? > > Or maybe it's "unhash" that should *lose* -a and -f. Is there any > difference between "unalias" and "unhash -a", or "unfunction" and > "unhash -f"? unhash -a and unalias are (internal) aliases for the same thing. The same is true for unfunction and unhash -f. It just worked out that when I has rewriting all the hash table code that I could easily overload unhash to handle unalias and unfunction. The fact that you can also use unhash -a and unhash -f is unimportant. To try to improve the symmetry any further would just needlessly complicate the code with little gain. rc