From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by coral.primenet.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA02855 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 05:20:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA18538; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 15:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 15:12:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Zefram Message-Id: <28169.199608131911@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: bug in zsh 3.0-pre6? To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Z Shell workers mailing list) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 20:11:07 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <199608131834.UAA01455@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> from "Zoltan Hidvegi" at Aug 13, 96 08:34:22 pm X-Loop: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk X-Stardate: [-31]7958.99 X-US-Congress: Moronic fuckers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"AOLio.0.aX4.NED4o"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1959 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > if (hptr =3D=3D chline) Is the broken-printable lossage *really* necessary? It's a real nuisance when trying to apply patches. -zefram