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 melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id EAA07676 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 04:08:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA24578; Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:56:12 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:56:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <960623105703.ZM13192@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 10:56:58 -0700 Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.607 07jun96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Symmetry of hash/unhash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"5iew4.0.y_5.xKOpn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1429 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Why doesn't "hash" accept "-a" for aliases, like "unhash"? Shouldn't "hash -f" mean functions, like "unhash"? Or maybe it's "unhash" that should *lose* -a and -f. Is there any difference between "unalias" and "unhash -a", or "unfunction" and "unhash -f"? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern New male in /home/schaefer: >N 2 Justin William Schaefer Sat May 11 03:43 53/4040 "Happy Birthday"