From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16878 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2001 17:18:00 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 8 Aug 2001 17:18:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 22938 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2001 17:17:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 15605 Received: (qmail 22926 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2001 17:17:30 -0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked Sender: kiddleo@cav.logica.co.uk Message-ID: <3B71740F.3D92A203@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 18:17:03 +0100 From: Oliver Kiddle X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: new and updated completions References: <3B6EA97A.CD6DCB4F@u.genie.co.uk> <3B712464.A588EE5B@u.genie.co.uk> <1010808155228.ZM922@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bart Schaefer wrote: > There is no reason, ever, to use $args[@]. > > Either ksharrays is set, in which case you need ${args[@]}, or it is not > set, in which case $args is equivalent and microscopically faster. I thought about this once ages ago but didn't mention it. I've just followed what seems to be the convention in the completion functions. In the functions, there are: 2 occurences of ${expl[@]} 3 occurences of $expl and 139 occurences of $expl[@] So it is not just my fault. I had assumed that it was done this way for a reason such as handling a strange option combination or that it was considered more readable to have the [@] there. Maybe someone does have a reason? Oliver _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp