From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4906 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 15:36:13 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 15:36:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 21234 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2001 15:36:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15626 Received: (qmail 21223 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 15:36:07 -0000 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:35:51 -0400 From: Clint Adams To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: (Fwd) RE: Archive of shell@research.att.com ? Message-ID: <20010814113550.A6216@dman.com> References: <1010808163943.ZM1100@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1010808163943.ZM1100@candle.brasslantern.com>; from schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:39:43PM +0000 > Yes, there is an archive for shell@ list available at: I took a brief look; I'm not posting this to shell@ because I don't have the time to follow it right now. The adoption of bash-style /dev/{tcp,udp} into the standard strikes me as a bad idea: not the functionality, but the naming. I was envisioning the use of some sort of special associative array parameter as provided by zsh/tcp, before I was distracted.