From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21757 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2016 09:58:54 -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: 37791 Received: (qmail 26836 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2016 09:58:51 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f79b16d000005389-06-56a74355b2e9 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:58:42 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: Amusing (?) behavior of zsh/parameter specials Message-id: <20160126095842.0add4d87@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <160125211140.ZM15762@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <160123090736.ZM14384@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160124182611.710b0fba@ntlworld.com> <160125211140.ZM15762@torch.brasslantern.com> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xy7qhzsvDDI4sV7Q42PyQyYHRY9XB D0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGUuWrWYs2Mtc0dn8gbGB8TFTFyMnh4SAicSH6d2MELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hASWMkrMWr6NEcKZwSTx+cZSJgjnHKPExikvoMrOMkocOXQVrJ9FQFXixsc5rCA2 m4ChxNRNs8HiIgLiEmfXnmcBsYUFrCUW71sGZvMK2Ets/fmDGcTmFLCS+LlnN9TQSYwSFxZs AGvmF9CXuPr3E9Sx9hIzr5xhhGgWlPgx+R7YIGYBLYnN25pYIWx5ic1r3oINFRJQl7hxdzf7 BEbhWUhaZiFpmYWkZQEj8ypG0dTS5ILipPRcI73ixNzi0rx0veT83E2MkJD+uoNx6TGrQ4wC HIxKPLycxcvChFgTy4orcw8xSnAwK4nw1jgsDxPiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7EKM3BoiTOO3PX +xAhgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDo2h+TfmH18xtTM1nlt4Mam6T3NF2qsJUak/qeWaZ7Mn3 NRr+LmThOHfVi9c6eunXn75Hi4UqVk/6t09Qel3ctV9KkvZLvE7Ylh1Ku5Vy6Xmb8KTkSTt6 nm+8utOvd8d0Gz8vy77w9gXbT1/Zq/pV+a/ioQnGVxczBnIEJK/f1PsjccHNx2wasUosxRmJ hlrMRcWJAK6Z0GJlAgAA On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:11:40 -0800 Bart Schaefer wrote: > The main problem with the latter one is that, if the parameter really > is read-only after autoloading, "restoring" the unset will fail. I > guess the point is to restore the parameters that ARE set, so now that > I've written this all down I lean even more to the first variant. Yes, that was my attitude in previous changes for typeset -p. pws