From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1997 invoked from network); 1 Jun 1999 18:51:16 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 1 Jun 1999 18:51:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 1165 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 1999 18:51:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6427 Received: (qmail 1148 invoked from network); 1 Jun 1999 18:50:58 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990601185045.ZM11271@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:50:45 +0000 In-Reply-To: <9906011503.AA27304@ibmth.df.unipi.it> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "PATCH: pws-20: info formatting" (Jun 1, 5:03pm) References: <9906011503.AA27304@ibmth.df.unipi.it> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: PATCH: pws-20: info formatting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 1, 5:03pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: PATCH: pws-20: info formatting } } In an aside in a message which hasn't got back to me yet, I queried the } excess use of quoting in zsh.info*: it's not too surprising you get this } sort of clash in a documentation system written in half a dozen } incompatible languages at once. See zsh-workers/4053 and associated thread for more on this, particularly Zefram's remarks on the matter. Personally, I prefer the appearance after Peter's patch, but ... (Aside: Are there some LPAR() and RPAR() needed in the new text from 6416? And correspondingly different placements of tt()? I'm never sure what ought to be happening with LPAR() and RPAR().) -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com