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 WAA00315 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:14:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA22371; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 08:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 08:08:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Anthony Heading Message-Id: <199607021205.NAA18450@gmp-etpres1.uk.jpmorgan.com> Subject: Tag functions with shell options? To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:05:29 +0100 (BST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Nznlc.0.TT5.i4Hsn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1503 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu I've hit a small shell-based problem, and I wonder if it's a common one... My dearly beloved employers, or rather their technology guys, have come up with a Unix application load/unload scheme. And it works in a reasonably sensible way, by defining shell functions which grub around in config files and then set shell and environment variables appropriately. The trouble is that these functions rely on sh-style word splitting, which I don't have (or want) turned on by default. So I think I need some way of marking these functions to be interpreted with SH_WORD_SPLIT turned on locally. Or have I missed something simple? Anthony