From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-26305-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.dk>
Received: (qmail 16125 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2009 19:24:33 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=3.2.5
Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 13 Jan 2009 19:24:33 -0000
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Received: (qmail 52262 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2009 19:24:25 -0000
Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90)
  by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 13 Jan 2009 19:24:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 10775 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2009 19:24:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 26305
Received: (qmail 10764 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2009 19:24:19 -0000
Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106)
  by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 13 Jan 2009 19:24:19 -0000
Received: from mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com [81.103.221.49])
	by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298FD80271F0
	for <zsh-workers@sunsite.dk>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:24:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35])
          by mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com
          (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP
          id <20090113192414.QOAP7670.mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>
          for <zsh-workers@sunsite.dk>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:24:14 +0000
Received: from pws-pc ([81.107.45.176]) by aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com
          (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP
          id <20090113192413.NVXO19264.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@pws-pc>
          for <zsh-workers@sunsite.dk>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:24:13 +0000
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:24:09 +0000
From: Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
To: Zsh list <zsh-workers@sunsite.dk>
Subject: Re: treatment of empty strings - why is this not a bug?
Message-ID: <20090113192409.0c21909a@pws-pc>
In-Reply-To: <18796.17298.94642.461735@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
References: <18796.17298.94642.461735@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.1 (GTK+ 2.14.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=b9lWrR2ZfKoA:10 a=7862LJqnZcQA:10 a=NLZqzBF-AAAA:8 a=fdjTrTskFa-p_otRhXsA:9 a=zd9UDfRvtgWXDzU2oeEu65WP-h0A:4 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8861/Tue Jan 13 17:09:19 2009 on bifrost
X-Virus-Status: Clean

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:32:34 -0500
Greg Klanderman <gak@klanderman.net> wrote:
> lwm% x=::: && for v in "${(s-:-)x}" ; do echo "v= =>$v<=" ; done
> v= =><=
> v= =><=

Hmm...

% setopt rcexpandparam                                     
% x=::: && for v in "${(s-:-)x}" ; do echo "v= =>$v<=" ; done
v= =><=
v= =><=
v= =><=
v= =><=

What's this got to do with RC_EXPAND_PARAM and why is the behaviour
without that option not a bug?  Er...  I'm very glad you asked.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
Web page now at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.w.stephenson/