From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23880 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2002 18:31:31 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Oct 2002 18:31:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 17907 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2002 18:30:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 17814 Received: (qmail 17864 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2002 18:30:29 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:27:46 +0200 From: DervishD To: Oliver Kiddle Cc: Zsh Subject: Re: Recursion and shell functions Message-ID: <20021011182746.GA16012@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: Oliver Kiddle , Zsh References: <20021010194154.GA10963@DervishD> <20021011110513.GB270@DervishD> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Pleyades Net Hi Oliver :)) > > The only requirement is a SuSv3 compatible shell :( > I'm not sure whether SuSv3 defines a behaviour for a recursive > function. If you test it on a few implementations it should be okay. It does not, but it is supported at least in zsh and bash. When released I suppose that people will test it under more shells. > > > set * > Note than in a zsh that isn't emulating Bourne, this might result > in an error when * doesn't match anything. I've thought of a solution: we create some 'fake' file so the asterisk at least expands to that file. There is no problem with this, since we have control over the source directory and we can write over it. Anyway we would like a better solution O:))) All this is for a 'configure' clone that I'm doing called MOBS (My Own Build System) that I use in my projects. It's GPL'd and will be released (at least!) in a couple of weeks. > > > Something like find is going to be more reliable though. > If you do this, you might want to take a little care over a few things Thanks for your advise :))). I'll try to make it as reliable as I can. And if I think of a better solution for the '*' expansion issue, I will tell on the list :) Thanks a lot for your help :)))) You've saved me a lot of (unpaid but pleasant) work :))) Raśl