From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: zsh-workers-return-43732-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@zsh.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from primenet.com.au (ns1.primenet.com.au [203.24.36.2]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 4bb3818c for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:34:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 2353 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2018 00:34:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 43732 Received: (qmail 1523 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Oct 2018 00:34:37 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-it1-f179.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(209.85.166.179):SA:0(-1.9/5.0):. Processed in 3.738165 secs); 28 Oct 2018 00:34:37 -0000 X-Envelope-From: dana@dana.is X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dana-is.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6zcz32eag6S/IpkoNs461iWxds9tpKwaj3+hWO5+H1g=; b=FyU1wdyFp/uDx/q+hjoyYCTanDNlj8ayPVUoIv810BUMrwfVSkTQPMbYDu0b3QizrP tP30QVYef/wFs2wDg2aeLdc3CVaUx1OJk79X3fmf6G6YITacavYuqmgXynKFmtHdyOgw +Wg5c9ZSFy8eQpA4AOaCyDi9vGjtiHUYVXSbVUtBAlKEt34rolwYA3mFIUkq5T2Szn6d zyIeHZvXrVL/NeoKUUwmkKubNJvUN0Tj31aZQwO4a6nvemNOhqvBLBkI6/u0o24EXvQo nw8h72MlsjQOD5BtpPZCP2KDtNRcrNDy505sjzCQioh7Fs4fiite0EaYA6t7kOkRiaYw uXjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6zcz32eag6S/IpkoNs461iWxds9tpKwaj3+hWO5+H1g=; b=Cty7Ujs0ijvoTMo59i7toNY78yEIfK9eNa0yzYqf+N5O4EIQS+Awpu0wcITw63NBcr 3SDh8y8nb5RzHctY5DG012GADu1XheMrpqZP4E1szRdDZLRfEwRhHdrq/Bv1q6qZL3J2 H9W10NzPy95PIVpzoaI9OKTWVYHf/BTzYxY5Rc7ET6/4rJTSN2vHj2KVGrca9iA27UOr tyzqXgMJRDtPGYew/k4TRzhqpWXfDfbUxgy5ZnKBNJS2pMj+BP2VogfRMRFPwO7uYspL SEcaEd9I0YJZwOwi44A2bBnXa2HPPg1qWaTPggVFno90xCdRYBfZO3AGEudtgiqibZkN WyGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gITPJkiLCeOFpjqOx/xXZv6dV0aroJnK2Fs7YJZwEXQFHRo3hqL FYiMUQrRwl9xCxsUTVCwPDH2ZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5f6E/zIwyT9DIe87+jgOx5ja2Ksob6KQ7nLgn1TKIGTpo+YiE9pIM2kPQZoDrZqEDWg412cBA== X-Received: by 2002:a24:aa41:: with SMTP id y1-v6mr7049452iti.91.1540686871392; Sat, 27 Oct 2018 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\)) Subject: Re: Inconsistencies in "-quoting and @-splitting, could someone elaborate? From: dana In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 19:34:29 -0500 Cc: Zsh hackers list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1BE52C46-161F-412B-A539-4B0EA87A2FCE@dana.is> References: To: Sebastian Gniazdowski X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39) On 27 Oct 2018, at 05:33, Sebastian Gniazdowski = wrote: >I'm having problem in grasping, is this behavior: >- "X-flag creates array, unless its result is a single element", and >- "X-flag creates array even when double quoted without use of @" I don't know if it's accurate to say that they 'create an array' =E2=80=94= they expand to a list of zero, one, or multiple words (or elements, or arguments, or whatever you want to call them), which you might then *put into* or (in = certain parameter-expansion cases) *act on as* an array, but the result of the = expansion is not an array per se. (Maybe that's arguable when it comes to (A), given how it's implemented, = but i find it useful to think of it that way even in that case.) On 27 Oct 2018, at 05:33, Sebastian Gniazdowski = wrote: >is this behavior consistent, or per-flag, or general >random/historical.. Because the two behaviors seem to apply for (s::) >and (z) (a=3D'a b c d'; print -rl "${(z)a}" will print 4 lines, despite >"-quoting and lack of @), but they look like a two unrelated, >accidentally-similar, with possible further differences, exceptions, >so I would state there's a major inconsistency/historically-driven >problem in Zsh. Are there other such flags in Zsh? I don't understand where the inconsistency is...? Are you just = speculating that there might be one? dana