From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19813 invoked from network); 28 Feb 1997 16:25:29 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Feb 1997 16:25:29 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA11545; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:12:13 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:12:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <970228082002.ZM22732@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:20:02 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Zoltan T. Hidvegi) "Re: case $? fails" (Feb 27, 4:50pm) References: <9702272150.AA15381@lotto.fishkill.ibm.com> Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: (Zoltan T. Hidvegi), zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: case $? fails MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"CuWn_1.0.Hq2.SFm5p"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2944 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Feb 27, 4:50pm, (Zoltan T. Hidvegi) wrote: } Subject: Re: case $? fails } } prints zero. The patch below fixes these. The for syntax is new in } zsh-3.1 so the first two hunks should be removed if the patch is applied } against zsh-3.0.3-test4. The first two hunks? Or the second two hunks? I've now tried this a couple of different ways and can't get it to apply to 3.0.3-test4. Could you send a patch specifically for that? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern