From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13916 invoked from network); 6 Aug 1999 07:14:14 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 6 Aug 1999 07:14:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 8657 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 1999 07:14:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7386 Received: (qmail 8649 invoked from network); 6 Aug 1999 07:14:03 -0000 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:14:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199908060714.JAA17898@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:20:56 +0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: parameter and quoting (was: Re: Completion problems.) Bart Schaefer wrote: > Hrm. One problem which may not even be worth mentioning is that > > ${(Qq)param} acts like ${(q)param} and > ${(qQ)param} acts like ${(Q)param} > > whereas other "inversions" like using (j///s///) always both happen and > always happen in the same order regardless of the order in which the flags > appear. This makes the result look as if both flags were used, `q' first, which means that `${(qQ)foo}' is the same as ${foo}. Bye Sven --- os/subst.c Thu Aug 5 16:27:16 1999 +++ Src/subst.c Fri Aug 6 09:11:21 1999 @@ -825,10 +825,10 @@ break; case 'q': - quotemod = 1; + quotemod++; break; case 'Q': - quotemod = -1; + quotemod--; break; case 'X': quoteerr = 1; -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de