From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26451 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 17:55:24 -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=-2.3 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; 16 Jan 2009 17:55:24 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 22410 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 17:55:20 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 17:55:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 29018 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 17:55:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26322 Received: (qmail 29008 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 17:55:16 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 17:55:16 -0000 Received: from cluster-g.mailcontrol.com (cluster-g.mailcontrol.com [208.87.233.190]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6865D80293E7 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:55:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from cameurexb01.EUROPE.ROOT.PRI ([193.128.72.68]) by rly22g.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id n0GHt93x022473 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:55:10 GMT Received: from news01.csr.com ([10.103.143.38]) by cameurexb01.EUROPE.ROOT.PRI with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:55:09 +0000 Received: from news01.csr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by news01.csr.com (8.14.2/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n0GHt4fj025947 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:55:04 GMT Received: from csr.com (pws@localhost) by news01.csr.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id n0GHt4aT025943 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:55:04 GMT Message-Id: <200901161755.n0GHt4aT025943@news01.csr.com> X-Authentication-Warning: news01.csr.com: pws owned process doing -bs To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: treatment of empty strings - why is this not a bug? In-reply-to: References: <18796.17298.94642.461735@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <090115201912.ZM20275@torch.brasslantern.com> Comments: In-reply-to Greg Klanderman message dated "Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:35:45 -0500." Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:55:04 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2009 17:55:09.0645 (UTC) FILETIME=[929827D0:01C97803] X-Scanned-By: MailControl A_08_51_00 (www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.71.0.132 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8872/Fri Jan 16 17:55:46 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean Greg Klanderman wrote: > You and Peter seem to be in charge here - do you both still agree that > dropping empty strings is a desirable default? > > Would you guys be OK with adding an option to inhibit this? I think that's more likely to be a source of confusion rather than a help. If you know about the problem you can already get round it. If you don't the option isn't going to help. The option's yet another headache for debugging. Further, I don't think the option would be useful without syntax to restore the current behaviour for each variable (the opposite of double-quoting), since as Bart pointed out that's quite widely used. That adds yet another of layer of complexity and source of bugs. -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer CSR PLC, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070