From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17437 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2001 13:16:46 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Aug 2001 13:16:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 13186 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2001 13:16:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15610 Received: (qmail 13175 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2001 13:16:39 -0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: new and updated completions In-reply-to: ""Bart Schaefer""'s message of "Wed, 08 Aug 2001 15:52:28 -0000." <1010808155228.ZM922@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 15:20:45 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: <20010811142051.4C70314286@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk> "Bart Schaefer" wrote: > On Aug 8, 12:37pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote: > } > } + [[ -e /etc/redhat-release ]] && args=( $args[@] > > There is no reason, ever, to use $args[@]. Indeed, there's no reason to use the `@' forms outside double quotes, which is their natural habitat. There the distinction between $args and $args[@] is important, although I tend to use ${args[@]} just for clarity (but I tend to be inconsistent, too). -- Peter Stephenson Work: pws@csr.com Web: http://www.pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk