From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8293 invoked from network); 31 May 1999 01:29:08 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 31 May 1999 01:29:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 4718 invoked by alias); 31 May 1999 01:29:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6371 Received: (qmail 4701 invoked from network); 31 May 1999 01:28:58 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990531012847.ZM720@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 01:28:46 +0000 In-Reply-To: <9905071340.AA43256@ibmth.df.unipi.it> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "PATCH: 3.1.5-pws-N: unset fix" (May 7, 3:40pm) References: <9905071340.AA43256@ibmth.df.unipi.it> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Peter Stephenson , zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.1.5-pws-N: unset fix MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 7, 3:40pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: PATCH: 3.1.5-pws-N: unset fix } } The first hunk of this is relevant to 3.0.6, although the if (pm->flags & } PM_UNSET) test needs adding by hand. Are you sure this is relevant to 3.0.6? As far as I know, prior to the associative array changes in 3.1.5+ parameters with PM_UNSET were never permitted to appear in the paramtab. (So the 3.1.5+ bug is probably my fault for missing a spot where PM_UNSET needed to be tested.) } [...] in 3.0.6 [...] I noticed that if a parameter that was local in one } function is unset in a function called from that, it will be restored next } time in global scope [...] which may not be intended [...] } so it may be a bug. Should I send a patch for both for 3.0.6? You should either send a patch or make mention of the difference in the FAQ somewhere, or perhaps both. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com