From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19024 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 23:26:49 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 23:26:49 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 18346 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 23:26:42 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 23:26:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 2139 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 23:26:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26328 Received: (qmail 2129 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 23:26:34 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 23:26:34 -0000 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.156]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248C180271F0 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:26:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so846596fga.37 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:26:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6dD0id9oGkDLBUQjSI0gujyxcbdCAjFAHCystIsJwBo=; b=s9sHLXFmsW67ucKfklUw1LVJtwbOi3Qn34q4alO+RJ+mUH6SFCeYamTape8WYbfP0O hBydB/85ENqLXVB1EPmZF464ahZYkoOiCpr0JN8lj5WkYUfJJJLfCBtuHqB4INVQotEs efmwrDiKhC4t4l2RvdYpVp64ODnMz0brhwlQU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Ls3Tj3r4JYhELor/9p58mb3F/M11y0Gey3HAyYxvSjhF138iE5BxBMw2A3PtOT5y0N 44CRh38/FYDTZN5mdDx3d43gQTjzqdrmbUFLN6ObGXQ6zunbqyt5RwBf4vO6svUN1YXG gsiOOb7SlVagjjedz5mNy/AmjMAgKcddeLsDc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.86.54.3 with SMTP id c3mr2229965fga.75.1232148391825; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:26:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <18796.17298.94642.461735@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <090115201912.ZM20275@torch.brasslantern.com> <200901161755.n0GHt4aT025943@news01.csr.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:26:31 +0100 Message-ID: <2d460de70901161526l43ce529ai32a0613abb456e09@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: treatment of empty strings - why is this not a bug? From: Richard Hartmann To: gak@klanderman.net Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8872/Fri Jan 16 17:55:46 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 20:40, Greg Klanderman wrote: > I cannot believe it's widely used, except in legacy scripts that > predate array parameters. Why would you put an empty string into a > variable unless you wanted it there? I don't see any reason you'd > ever want the current behavior in a new script, and any existing > script should just emulate to the broken behavior. Existing scripts tend to run in odd places, often without anyone around who can still maintain them. Such a change could have very bad effects, possibly without anyone noticing (in time). That is a real problem and happens far too often, no need to make it worse. Richard