From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-28496-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 11362 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2010 21:49:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 28496
Received: (qmail 21488 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2010 21:49:17 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.1
Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.google.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
         :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=PMe9rRzXMt0hV9UdHnvbrad+X/q9JtO/2AA3/+Iy8yw=;
        b=K8OUovC/PzK4DfuXvNLGogdpZoL3u8gKfK8I9Yqh0LIXqHT2opgKzQNo7xqV8EzQt7
         jl0OsK8gVo51eSajvN20YkAZUAO4MlR9HRpSwMajAdytVklX4h47vW/6vyvl12BZvJY6
         zh0BFEoAKzPreCfte9L0Hnxjxa+uX/d/wkQOo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=xggNtxPspgB6Lf1zehtl/MS7STwmruExQTbBlib9eViNzqlzYgrdWnXJQlBO23iA2N
         /VOosfAI1FINZHiFsDS1+Xxzsfmi18pzW4QFFm2pFcn8YWtwlPzbkavbewIxy/bEgeAO
         hGtwgb2oJO0H3bsri26BxWkPnov8WYS4PhwVQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinGZO_yfpv3QsOt3PiVWsWNMKwSKk0Crvz=Vt3E@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimOhbjnSiCWJ9y8jJ_WCscTF27ROR=Fg2twOMod@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinvYn_F50XiPdMauivmpsg2-NE9DrYzwcc+a+b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikvssL1T2hJRpNfuSOmbKbF3KS2VV9CViHeawzu@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinGZO_yfpv3QsOt3PiVWsWNMKwSKk0Crvz=Vt3E@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:49:11 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinc5kqYFvpTmeNcsu6xbVrbWLP4CGbSFEK3ZhL=@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: extended braces syntax, {1..32..-03}
From: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com>
To: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>
Cc: zsh workers <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 6 December 2010 22:17, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 22:00, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Originally i had the same number of zeroes regardless of the minus
>> sign, but bash does it this way, so I figured I'd be consistent with
>> that.
>
> Oups. Can I claim "too stupid to read" in my defense?
>
> While I can see the advantage in being compatible with Bash, this
> behavior is arguably a bug. If you want, I can pester them about
> changing their behavior. Or you decide to change it. Or I just shut up
> :)

I just tested in C (printf) and it does it this way too,
printf ("%04d %04d", -5, 5);
-005 0005

as does zsh's printf
% printf '%04d %04d' -5 5
-005 0005

>On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 22:04, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I actually realized it's not my fault, it always did that :). (but you
>> still needed setopt braceccl to expand them before the patch).

>Also a bug imo. But as it's been that way, changing it is probably not
>a option, is it?

Well, I don't think a feature only available by an option that does
something completely different can really be said to be reliable, but
I'll let someone else decide, if they even care. I could in any case
limit the nobraceccl case to disallow it.

-- 
Mikael Magnusson