From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4785 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2009 08:44:28 -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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from new-brage.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.254.104) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 30 Jun 2009 08:44:28 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 6084 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2009 08:44:09 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 30 Jun 2009 08:44:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 14933 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2009 08:44:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 27073 Received: (qmail 14906 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2009 08:43:58 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 30 Jun 2009 08:43:58 -0000 Received: from cluster-d.mailcontrol.com (cluster-d.mailcontrol.com [85.115.60.190]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA48780307FA for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:43:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cameurexb01.EUROPE.ROOT.PRI ([193.128.72.68]) by rly22d.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id n5U8hfvI007733 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:43:41 +0100 Received: from news01.csr.com ([10.99.50.25]) by cameurexb01.EUROPE.ROOT.PRI with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:43:40 +0100 Received: from news01.csr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by news01.csr.com (8.14.2/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n5U8heWw011240 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:43:41 +0100 Received: from csr.com (pws@localhost) by news01.csr.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id n5U8hecG011236 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:43:40 +0100 Message-Id: <200906300843.n5U8hecG011236@news01.csr.com> X-Authentication-Warning: news01.csr.com: pws owned process doing -bs To: Zsh list Subject: Re: use 'P' parameter expansion flag with array? In-reply-to: <19017.33909.493608.356003@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <19017.33909.493608.356003@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Comments: In-reply-to Greg Klanderman message dated "Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:20:21 -0400." Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:43:40 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2009 08:43:41.0035 (UTC) FILETIME=[DE67B3B0:01C9F95E] X-Scanned-By: MailControl A-09-00-10 (www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.68.0.132 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/9521/Tue Jun 30 07:22:03 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean Greg Klanderman wrote: > If the 'P' parameter expansion flag is applied to an array parameter, > should it be applied to each of the elements? It does seem logical, but the code is obscure and it's not clear whether this was intended or not---it probably fell through the cracks. I don't think the flag was completely thought through in other ways I've noticed in the past, though I've forgotten what they are for the time being. paramsubst() is full of my "one day someone should spend a year tidying this up" comments. -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer CSR PLC, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070