From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-37928-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 17343 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2016 08:54:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 37928
Received: (qmail 20653 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2016 08:54:01 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) 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=3.4.1
X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f79b16d000005389-e1-56b9a9269e07
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:53:56 +0000
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: unset "hash[key]" isn't matched with what "key" may be
Message-id: <20160209085356.5d9b7401@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <160208205418.ZM27521@torch.brasslantern.com>
References:
 <CAKc7PVBXd-UGwM+_tRSwuw-WL154YaTys6-t3iuzfAsG-RC-YQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <160207133307.ZM31008@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <160207230544.ZM10065@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <160208205418.ZM27521@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+NgFrrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xK7pqK3eGGXxfqWJxsPkhkwOjx6qD
	H5gCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MhZMe8Ja8JC1YsHaA+wNjEdYuhg5OSQETCTe//rMCmGLSVy4
	t56ti5GLQ0hgKaPE2uu9bCAJIYEZTBJNlzQg7NOMEuvnVEEUnWGUmLC/FWwSi4CqxPsrF8Bs
	NgFDiambZjOC2CICWhI7Tp5kArGFBZwlru1azw5i8wrYSyzctoUZxOYUsJJ4//UcK8TQR4wS
	505tBhvEL6AvcfXvJyaI8+wlZl45wwjRLCjxY/I9sBpmoAWbtzWxQtjyEpvXvGWGuFRd4sbd
	3ewTGIVnIWmZhaRlFpKWBYzMqxhFU0uTC4qT0nON9IoTc4tL89L1kvNzNzFCwvnrDsalx6wO
	MQpwMCrx8B74vCNMiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgiv55ydYUK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR5
	Z+56HyIkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTZeLglGpg5NppXmqtzbOv1vffgtlzp3Otc12ZuYL79obpr6Ys
	fVGtfvzMvYg24yn6b3cpnZ4usX//8WiJ/veNx8pYhUQfFa2cPP/+mUs3K+7Yne1uP5J8tXTK
	2TiL8GNtPQKlqaLRlzfPMFK+a3deqd5ZeAmzmeW2zMDNPSt7P216k3Bp+mm/ydrynzndKpRY
	ijMSDbWYi4oTAZnKwxBjAgAA

On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:54:18 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 11:05pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> }
> } This does reflect a change from previous behavior, so we'll want to
> } consider it carefully.
> 
> Since no one commented to the contrary, I've pushed this so we can get
> some additional experience with it.

The old code is clearly unusable for some characters in the key, so a
change of some sort is warranted.

All that occurred to me was an additional option to provoke an extra
expansion step on the argument after locating the brackets.

  unset -? 'hash[$i]'

would then be reliable.  If the extra backslash stripping occurred early
enough it wouldn't get in the way.

pws