From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9821 invoked from network); 10 May 1999 10:04:33 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 10 May 1999 10:04:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 4009 invoked by alias); 10 May 1999 10:04:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6245 Received: (qmail 4002 invoked from network); 10 May 1999 10:04:24 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:13:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905100913.LAA14644@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Sun, 9 May 1999 10:49:40 -0700 Subject: Re: BUG: zsh-3.1.5-pws-14: parameter expansion not working properly Bart Schaefer wrote: > The only good alternatives at this point are probably [a] go back to the > 3.0 behavior of (@), or [b] leave it the way this mult_isarr patch leaves > it. Can anyone think of something in between that makes sense? It just occured to me that I didn't say that I would be in favor of using the patch. I.e. to keep the things we have done to the `(@)' stuff plus the patch. I consider the previous patches important, because it allows one to distinguish arrays with one element from strings and this last patch made things more consistent. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de