From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12306 invoked from network); 1 Sep 1999 09:09:56 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 1 Sep 1999 09:09:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 28578 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 1999 09:09:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7595 Received: (qmail 28571 invoked from network); 1 Sep 1999 09:09:46 -0000 Message-Id: <9909010835.AA15938@ibmth.df.unipi.it> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: new parameter flag? In-Reply-To: "Sven Wischnowsky"'s message of "Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:43:30 DFT." <199908311243.OAA29911@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 10:35:46 +0200 From: Peter Stephenson I suspect there may be an untokenization problem in the new parameter flags, or is the following expected for some reason? % print ${(%):-%~} % print "${(%):-%~}" /temp/pws/zsh-beta/Src (by the way, is it supposed to work like that without a parameter name, or is it just coincidence, because it's quite convenient?) I haven't attempted to fix this because I haven't understood what all the metafy/unmetafy bits are doing. But it should presumably be safe to untokenize while it's still metafied. It's probably naive to hope everything could be untokenized earlier on. Then there's remnulargs, or maybe not. Good luck. -- Peter Stephenson Tel: +39 050 844536 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy