From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8674 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2000 15:55:24 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 10 Mar 2000 15:55:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 7003 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2000 15:55:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10060 Received: (qmail 6975 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2000 15:55:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:54:44 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200003101554.QAA13108@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Sven Wischnowsky's message of Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:33:53 +0100 (MET) Subject: Re: ksh (with PATCH) I wrote: > Of course, there are also many other things that failed, including: > > ... > > These may be changed, someway, I think. Err... I didn't want to give the impression that I think we should or have to implement these[1], I just wanted to say that these at least wouldn't be that hard, I think (the subscript thing may be a bigger problem than I can see now). Bye Sven [1] Personally, I don't care much about ksh compatibility. -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de