From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23532 invoked from network); 5 Aug 1999 12:53:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 5 Aug 1999 12:53:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 27651 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 1999 12:53:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7376 Received: (qmail 27644 invoked from network); 5 Aug 1999 12:53:11 -0000 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:53:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199908051253.OAA17004@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Peter Stephenson's message of Thu, 05 Aug 1999 14:05:14 +0200 Subject: Re: PATCH: parameter and quoting (was: Re: Completion problems.) Peter Stephenson wrote: > Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > > Btw. something like `${foo%(}' > > currently gives me a non-zero return status but no error message -- > > even though there seems to be some extra code for it -- I haven't > > investigated any firther yet, but this seems wrong, doesn't it? > > The behaviour of BAD_PATTERN is a bit inconsistent: sometimes the option > is respected, sometimes it isn't, sometimes bad patterns aren't reported at > all. There's probably quite a lot wrong. Ah, right, hadn't thought about patterns (ahem)... "${a%'}" reports the error. Hm. Should the proposed new flag apply to those, too, and change the current behaviour to not report the error or should the current behaviour of (Q) be changed? Personally I prefer the first one, but that would require an incompatible change. (And making the flag turn off errors for ${...%...} and friends and turn it on for (Q) is almost certainly the wrong way). Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de