From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3492 invoked from network); 9 May 1997 18:05:35 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 May 1997 18:05:35 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA15658; Fri, 9 May 1997 13:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:50:59 -0400 (EDT) From: (Zoltan T. Hidvegi) Message-Id: <9705091750.AA23988@lotto.fishkill.ibm.com> Subject: Re: test patches In-Reply-To: from Hrvoje Niksic at "May 9, 97 10:04:50 am" To: hniksic@srce.hr (Hrvoje Niksic) Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:50:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Resent-Message-ID: <"6XHrS1.0.aq3.2GsSp"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3104 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > Would it be too much work (or too much braindamage, for that matter), > to do what bash does in cases of `{foo' and `foo bar}' -- i.e. pretend > the expansion is not there. > > bash$ {foo > bash: {foo: command not found > bash$ foo bar} > bash: foo: command not found No, it would not be too much work. In fact, zsh now contains extra code to aupport {foo and bar}. There was a beta release before 3.0.0 where I tried to drop this but there were too much complains. Maybe we need an option like BROKEN_ZSH_BRACES :-). The problem is that some old zsh scripts define functions as foo(){echo bar} instead of foo () { echo bar; }. Zoltan