Inconsistent usage of NOMATCH/NO_MATCH in documentation

Inconsistent usage of NOMATCH/NO_MATCH in documentation

[Axel Beckert]

Hi,

while looking up something in zshall(1) I noticed that the option
NOMATCH is inconsistently written in two ways:

~ → man zshall | egrep -ni 'no_?match'
196:       INTERACTIVE_COMMENTS,   KSH_ARRAYS,   NO_MULTIOS,   NO_NOMATCH,   NO_NOTIFY,    POSIX_BUILTINS,
832:       •      File generation failures where not caused by NO_MATCH or similar options
3719:       and the option NOMATCH is set, an error results.
3823:       which case the word is deleted; or unless the NOMATCH option is unset, in which case  the  word
6059:              Overrides NOMATCH.
6166:       NOMATCH (+3) <C> <Z>
6173:              ment list instead of reporting an error.  Overrides NOMATCH.
7177:       -3     NO_NOMATCH

Please note that every occurrence but one uses NOMATCH (and its
negation) NO_NOMATCH, but (line 832) uses NO_MATCH.

Should we correct that for the ease of searching inside zshall? (Which
is actually how I noticed it because I searched for NO_MATCH first.)

Would do unless there's some opposition.

		Kind regards, Axel
-- 
PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5      /~\  Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/
Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org  \ /  Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet
Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org  X
https://axel.beckert.ch/   / \  I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/

Re: Inconsistent usage of NOMATCH/NO_MATCH in documentation

[Peter Stephenson]

> Please note that every occurrence but one uses NOMATCH (and its
> negation) NO_NOMATCH, but (line 832) uses NO_MATCH.
> 
> Should we correct that for the ease of searching inside zshall? (Which
> is actually how I noticed it because I searched for NO_MATCH first.)

Yes, that's quite definitely wrong.  There's no MATCH option, it's NOMATCH,
so this is just plain confusing.

pws

Re: Inconsistent usage of NOMATCH/NO_MATCH in documentation

[Axel Beckert]

Hi Peter,

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:35:17AM +0100, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> > Please note that every occurrence but one uses NOMATCH (and its
> > negation) NO_NOMATCH, but (line 832) uses NO_MATCH.
> > 
> > Should we correct that for the ease of searching inside zshall? (Which
> > is actually how I noticed it because I searched for NO_MATCH first.)
> 
> Yes, that's quite definitely wrong.  There's no MATCH option, it's NOMATCH,
> so this is just plain confusing.

thanks for the swift reply and acknowledgement.

I just pushed a fix. :-)

		Kind regards, Axel
-- 
PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5      /~\  Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/
Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org  \ /  Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet
Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org  X
https://axel.beckert.ch/   / \  I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/