From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11880 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2012 22:34:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 30763 Received: (qmail 8722 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2012 22:34:06 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at dima.secretsauce.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=sUXw2EsW1PMaT/Jp0NPRuByB1lI=; b=Xv3s+U5UvJsDzwzHMEtW+5eMOmfz 3r4+04OR+2fL+FY1pJ4bnIjhEXf3u/XuxHBMjU2Xy8bCnUeHOFT5w+J8aNy0vTtA JLLZ5UyooSsWxDIUxV/om3FOBlmF1nVScenqfr3ASSfrkqigqj5kEWLEuApUiJDV rFkK8bFPL0B6bJM= X-Sasl-enc: EJBIYLuIzxY8AR0uNBnNhOR6TEIxnL6NK748AyOIAq5X 1351377242 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:34:00 -0700 From: Dima Kogan To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Possible bug in zargs Message-ID: <20121027153400.77571174@shorty.local> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't seem to get the -n option in zargs to work right. This looks like a bug to me, but maybe I'm not using it correctly: dima@shorty:/tmp$ ls -l total 12 -rw-r--r-- 1 dima dima 1 Oct 27 15:29 1 -rw-r--r-- 1 dima dima 5 Oct 27 15:29 2 -rw-r--r-- 1 dima dima 5 Oct 27 15:29 3 dima@shorty:/tmp$ zargs -- * -- ls -l -rw-r--r-- 1 dima dima 1 Oct 27 15:29 1 -rw-r--r-- 1 dima dima 5 Oct 27 15:29 2 -rw-r--r-- 1 dima dima 5 Oct 27 15:29 3 dima@shorty:/tmp$ zargs -- * -- ls 1 2 3 dima@shorty:/tmp$ zargs -n1 -- * -- ls 1 2 3 dima@shorty:/tmp$ zargs -n1 -- * -- ls -l zargs: argument list too long The "argument list too long" doesn't make sense here. Thanks