From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19000 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2000 09:41:13 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 15 Jun 2000 09:41:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 24879 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2000 09:40:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11925 Received: (qmail 24872 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2000 09:40:54 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:40:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200006150940.LAA05698@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: Peter Stephenson's message of Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:22:52 +0100 Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: expansion Peter Stephenson wrote: > Bart wrote: > > Sven wrote: > > } They should be turned into boolean styles and the condition should come > > } from somewhere else, e.g. the -e option to zstyle I suggested (see > > } 11691). > > > > I agree. > > Yes, that would be preferable. Does `evaluated' mean `treated as a string > to be passed directly to eval' or `split into words and executed' or > `parsed and executed as a command line'? The last, which is what eval does, isn't it? At least it does the same as bin_eval(). > I think it could be clearer. > `$reply' would be more standard, but it doesn't really mean much here; Ok. > I wish there were something more obvious, but I bet we've discussed that. Not much discussion. And yes, it would be nice if... but it was the cleanest I could think of. Before that I suggested `special values' which is even uglier. If anyone has any ideas... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de