From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24646 invoked from network); 9 Aug 1999 17:23:21 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 Aug 1999 17:23:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 29741 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 1999 17:23:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7410 Received: (qmail 29724 invoked from network); 9 Aug 1999 17:23:07 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990809172303.ZM30147@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:23:03 +0000 In-Reply-To: <001a01bee240$25c71160$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> Comments: In reply to "Andrej Borsenkow" "RE: Un-patch: new pattern matching code" (Aug 9, 12:21pm) References: <001a01bee240$25c71160$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "Zsh hackers list" Subject: Re: Un-patch: new pattern matching code MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 9, 12:21pm, Andrej Borsenkow wrote: } Subject: RE: Un-patch: new pattern matching code } } > } > There is ${(MSI:n:)...#...}, where n is a number. BTW, it looks like (M) } > doesn't work right with ${.../...}. Am I missing something? } } At least, this is explicitly stated in the manual :-) D'oh! I even edited that text when it appeared. But clearly it ought to be repeated in the "Parameter Flags" subsection. Index: Doc/Zsh/expn.yo =================================================================== @@ -697,8 +697,9 @@ ) enditem() -The following flags are meaningful with the tt(${)...tt(#)...tt(}), -tt(${)...tt(%)...tt(}), or tt(${)...tt(/)...tt(}) forms. +The following flags are meaningful with the tt(${)...tt(#)...tt(}) or +tt(${)...tt(%)...tt(}) forms. The tt(S) and tt(I) flags may also be +used with the tt(${)...tt(/)...tt(}) forms. startitem() item(tt(S))( } What would you like to do with (M) in this case? I was expecting it to reverse the sense of the pattern match, and thus substitute the NON-matching substrings by the replacement string. However, it's probably more sensible the way it is. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com