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 SAA15284 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 18:49:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA03450; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607260844.KAA19446@hydra.ifh.de> To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Zsh hackers list) Subject: bug, limitation, ...? Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:44:05 +0200 From: Peter Stephenson Resent-Message-ID: <"pJ9lf3.0.qr.JM8-n"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1779 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Somebody was complaining to me on the S-Bahn yesterday evening that he couldn't do: % set foo % print ${1[0]} zsh: closing brace expected (I think this question has cropped up before, in fact, but that was long before Zoltan's parameter substitution improvements.) It would be nice if numerical parameters were as much like `other' scalar parameters as possible. (OK, they're really array elements, but the mode of addressing suggests that should be hidden from the user; after all, direct assignment works.) Still, the world is not a nice place. If it turns out a change would be tantamount to allowing ${argv[0][0]} it's probably too much, at least for now. P.S. no need to post workarounds. -- 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.