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 EAA23822 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 04:15:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA23302; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:11:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <960719111210.ZM3055@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:12:10 -0700 Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.702 02jul96) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Misc. unresolved stuff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"jOnj01.0.-h5.t-yxn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1718 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu In article 1397, Zoltan said he'd fix $[$[1+2]+3], and apparently he has. Is there some reason why $((...)) doesn't nest? I asked in article 1414 whether there other differences between $[...] and $((...)). There's exactly one mention of $((...)) in zshexpn.man, which says only that it's the same as $[...]. In article 1426, I asked why array subscript flags such as $foo[(f)...] don't work with $foo[@] and $foo[*]. Does anyone else want them to? In article 1428, I pointed out that zsh's "getopts" builtin doesn't seem to properly handle some error cases, by comparison to bash. I don't have ksh to compare to that. Does anyone think "getopts" is a problem? In zsh-users article 257, I asked why there's no (:L) modifier, to go with the (L) flag; similarly (U) and (:U). I also hoped for a better error message for unrecognized modifiers. Any comment?