From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24418 invoked from network); 18 Apr 1999 23:40:01 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 18 Apr 1999 23:40:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 3838 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 1999 23:39:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6054 Received: (qmail 3831 invoked from network); 18 Apr 1999 23:39:49 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990418163903.ZM27240@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:39:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <199904160736.JAA15853@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Re: BUG: zsh-3.1.5-pws-14: parameter expansion not working properly" (Apr 16, 9:36am) References: <199904160736.JAA15853@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: BUG: zsh-3.1.5-pws-14: parameter expansion not working properly MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 16, 9:36am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Re: BUG: zsh-3.1.5-pws-14: parameter expansion not working proper } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } } > I don't think it's possible to "pass down" from paramsubst-->multsub } > the knowledge of whether an array should be returned [except when (P)]; } > it has to be "passed up," multsub<--prefork<--stringsubst<--paramsubst. } } I don't understand the difference between making the the arrows point } to the left or the right here. It's a call stack, with caller on the left and the callee on the right. Right-pointing arrows mean passed parameters, left-pointing arrows mean returned value(s) [including "returned" through a static global]. } > 4. *After* the subscripts are applied, the outer ${ ... } joins the } > quoted words into a single string, *unless*: the (@) flag is present } > or the [@] subscript was applied, and the (j) flag is not present. } } This one is very important. If we make it this way (and the patch } below does that), it means that we still need the plethora of `(@)' Yes, I know ... } [...] the behavior with the patch looks better than before to } me. We only need to discuss the `is there a way to avoid the need for } the many (@) flags' thing. I think the way to approach this may be to try to rewrite Peter's manual section on parameter substitution rules to see how confusing it is when joining does not occur. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com