From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990127220131.ZM31640@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:01:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: <199901270751.IAA29022@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: PATCH: suggestion for new condition" (Jan 27, 8:51am) References: <199901270751.IAA29022@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Sven Wischnowsky , zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: suggestion for new condition MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailing-List: 5074 On Jan 27, 8:51am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: PATCH: suggestion for new condition } } > } The patch below implements the `(t)' flag. `${(t)param}' will expand } > } to a string describing the type of parameter. When param is unset, it } > } will expand to `-' } > } > Why? Why not have it expand to nothing? In any case "-" is a bad choice, } > because in certain contexts it could be misinterpreted as an option. } } Blink. Yes, you are right, I was just thinking about Peter's mail and } didn't like to use a space. Of course, an empty string is the better } solution. OK, cool, now dumb question number two: Why does ${(t)param} ignore the setting of the `nounset' option? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com