From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 672 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 17:53:31 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 17:53:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 11496 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2003 17:53:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 19252 Received: (qmail 11483 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 17:53:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 17:53:20 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [193.109.254.211] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 17:53:19 -0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: okiddle@yahoo.co.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-36.messagelabs.com!1068832397!1811649 X-StarScan-Version: 5.1.13; banners=-,-,- Received: (qmail 1906 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 17:53:17 -0000 Received: from iris.logica.co.uk (158.234.9.163) by server-4.tower-36.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 17:53:17 -0000 Received: from gmcs3.local ([158.234.142.61]) by iris.logica.co.uk (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id hAEHrGAb022896 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:53:17 GMT Received: from gmcs3.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gmcs3.local (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id hAEHqVQ25471 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:52:31 +0100 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-StarScan-Version: 5.0.7; banners=.,-,- In-reply-to: <1031114171417.ZM2439@candle.brasslantern.com> From: Oliver Kiddle References: <19332.1068826982@csr.com> <1031114171417.ZM2439@candle.brasslantern.com> To: Zsh workers Subject: Re: Completion function for bitkeeper? Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:52:31 +0100 Message-ID: <25469.1068832351@gmcs3.local> Bart wrote: > } > Word splitting is vastly different in the two cases. It happens within > } > the words of $action in the second case, but does not in the first case. > > That's a bit incoherent, let me try again. That makes more sense now. Not sure I'd describe it as "vastly different". It would only affect fairly unusual cases. > In this second case it's a syntax error. I suppose it could be argued > that the second case is unnecessary because it's only a shorthand for > the first case with only one command in the braces. Do you really think it's worth keeping both syntaxes though given that it'd be nice to simplify _arguments syntax a little. I'd still be inclined to deprecate the initial space form but I'm really not so fussed. > Also in the second case the eval has been factored out of the loop > because we're always interested in the entire value of "$action" and > it's fractionally more efficient to do the "eval" once only. Though it is fairly rare for label loops to run more than once. Oliver