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 QAA01935 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 16:11:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA01864; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 02:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 02:00:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <960811230122.ZM5212@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 23:01:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: Zefram "Re: sh compatibility again :->" (Aug 12, 6:00am) References: <9940.199608120500@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.729 29jul96) To: Zefram , zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: sh compatibility again :-> Cc: hzoli@cs.elte.hu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"3Q9UG1.0.3T.1Yi3o"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1943 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Aug 12, 6:00am, Zefram wrote: } Subject: Re: sh compatibility again :-> } } >The only way to resolve this would be with yet another option, SH_QUOTES } >or some such. Worth it? Dunno. } } Not worth it. POSIX leaves the behaviour undefined IIRC, and there's } no advantage in the traditional behaviour. You're right about POSIX, but since it makes a pretty radical difference to the parse of a script containing unbalanced backticks, the advantage to the traditional behavior is to be able to execute traditional scripts. We can decide that's not very important, but it is something. BTW: Zoltan: Welcome back. ;-) -- 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"